+1 If you have only one server sqlite is great. If you have many servers behind load balancer than you need to a client-server database like mysql or postgresql.
On Thursday, 22 March 2012 21:59:26 UTC-5, Vasile Ermicioi wrote: > > developers themselves say 'dont use it for sites that have 100k hits/day > > > I disagree, > > look here > http://www.sqlite.org/whentouse.html<http://www.sqlite.org/whentouse.html> > > Generally speaking, any site that gets fewer than 100K hits/day should > work fine with SQLite. The 100K hits/day figure is a conservative estimate, > not a hard upper bound. SQLite has been demonstrated to work with 10 times > that amount of traffic. > > and that was written even before WAL appeared > > you can't cluster sqlite > > > you can use a clustered file system > I think cloud based hostings have such FS > e.g. Amazon S3 > > > many assumptions that were true for sqlite are not valid since version 3.7 > > SQLite is an awesome product, it supports > 1) concurrency > http://www.sqlite.org/draft/wal.html<http://www.sqlite.org/draft/wal.html> > > 2) full text search > http://www.sqlite.org/fts3.html <http://www.sqlite.org/fts3.html> with > contributions from some google engineers > > 3) R-Trees for geospacial systems > http://www.sqlite.org/rtree.html <http://www.sqlite.org/rtree.html> >
