On May 6, 2004, at 1:08 PM, Andrew Piskorski wrote:
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 06:24:10PM +0100, Steve O'Hara wrote:
However, I'm wondering why we're comparing SQLite with kernel based RDBMS
like Oracle etc, and not with it's more closely related cousins such as
Access ?
In my case, because I am very familiar with Oracle, somewhat less so with PostgreSQL, and much less familiar with most other databases. Also, because databases like Oracle and PostgreSQL are the current gold standard for functionality. Why compare to anything less?
comparing SQLite with Oracle and Pg because one is familiar with the latter two is a valid reason. But, not comparing it to anything else is not very useful either.
In this regard, how does SQLite compare with Access/FoxPro/Paradox/dBase ?
Because none of those are Real Databases? ;) [Joking, joking...]
Well, MOSTLY joking. Actually, I've no idea to what extent those each qualify as "Real Databases" (aka, full ACIDity, featureful, designed and implented by folks who have a clue, etc.).
However, I am reasonably sure that they're neither as powerful as PostgreSQL nor as small and simple as SQLite, and that none of them are Open Source. Therefore, they are not particularly interesting - not to me anyway.
they are as real a database as one wants them to be. Sure, they don't support ACID compliance, but I am not sure if they are created by people who don't have a clue. I have done some very useful, productive, and paying work with Access, and so have I with Oracle and SQLServer. Frankly, till now I have not done any paying work with SQLite, but definitely some useful and creative work. As much as I detest M$, and as much as I love opensource, I have credit M$ for making fairly decent databases for both desktop and client/server use at a reasonable price (compared to Oracle and DB2 anyway).
SQLite can't be compared favorably with Oracle/Pg because it doesn't pretend to be a client-server db. However, either one decides that SQLite is _only_ for embedded apps, or SQLite won't compare very favorably with the "not-real databases" as well because the "not-real databases" are indeed very easy to use and rapidly develop apps with. I have recently created a pretty useful app for a client using Perl/DBI, DBD-ODBC and Access. Given how fluid the design was throughout the development, I simply could not have done so with SQLite because of the lack of an ALTER command. So, personally, I couldn't give a hoot about ?-level locking or concurrency, but give my ESC key for an ALTER command. Others will obviously think differently.
Access/FMPro/Paradox may not be opensource, but so is not Oracle, so by that reasoning, even Oracle should be out when it comes to comparison.
Frankly, I am not sure if there is anything exciting left in relational databases to discover or create... most has been created and well-tested over the past 3 decades. What is left is making a tool useful. And "useful" is a composite of "capability" and "ease of use."
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
