On 30 Oct 2012, at 10:22pm, Vladislav Bolkhovitin <v...@vlnb.net> wrote:
> I fully understand your position. But "affordable" and "useful" are > completely orthogonal things. The "high end" features are very useful, if you > want to get high performance. Then ones, who can afford them, will use them, > which might be your favorite bank, for instance, hence they will be > indirectly working for you. > > Of course, you don't have to work on those features, especially for free, but > you similarly don't have then to call them useless only because they are not > affordable to be put in a desktop [1]. The problem is, I think, that no bank should be using SQLite for customer records. At its lowest basic level it is unsuited to high-end, multi-user, live-duplication work (for instance, all locking is carried out by locking the entire database !), and adding some features wanted by high-level users aren't going to change that. For those users you need a DBMS which provides a network-access server/client model. This is clearly laid out in <http://www.sqlite.org/whentouse.html> Think of SQLite as the thing a mobile phone uses to show its messages in chronological order, and the thing a TV recorder uses to maintain its list of recorded programmes. Both of which are literally true in my case. It is not suited to a huge institution-level data repository. The fact that some people use it for multi-user live access anyway is merely a sign that its excellent design and testing regime let it stand up to use far beyond original intent. Simon. _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
