Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!news.stack.nl!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed4.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <qt8aeaprecp11btjfiaht8q8d7mh6osqpv@4ax.com>
References: <mc1atd$cq0$1@ger.gmane.org> <mailman.18805.1424243139.18130.python-list@python.org> <mc1s1e$feh$1@news.albasani.net> <mailman.18815.1424258499.18130.python-list@python.org> <4154cc37-0bb0-4bf2-a52c-b728c737357c@googlegroups.com> <CAPTjJmogRj_==1wUcLooFwDhUK+saSaAkQEuUo4o30n8aRdB=w@mail.gmail.com> <54E517B4.4000409@stoneleaf.us> <mailman.18843.1424302365.18130.python-list@python.org> <qt8aeaprecp11btjfiaht8q8d7mh6osqpv@4ax.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:42:58 +1100
Subject: Re: 'Lite' Databases (Re: sqlite3 and dates)
From: Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>
Cc: "python-list@python.org" <python-list@python.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.18847.1424306587.18130.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 37
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:85839

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> wrote:
> I usually think of my relationship with postgre as similar to what I
> experienced with Git. At first I was just dumbstruck by the whole
> thing and my first reaction was to ignore it and just do version
> control as I knew with the tools I knew. But once my brain clicked
> into 'Git mode' and I realized its philosophy and its processes, I
> immediately recognized the benefits and understood why everyone was
> telling me Git was easy to use and highly useful.

(Side point: If you're going to treat PostgreSQL the way you'd treat a
girlfriend/boyfriend, you should probably be careful of how you
address him. "Postgres" or "PostgreSQL", but not usually "Postgre".)

This is a quite apt analogy. You have to get your head around some
fundamentals, but once you do, life becomes amazing.

>>then there is SQLite, which does 99% of what I want it to do other than
>>network use.
>
> SQLite misses some important features that makes it better suited as a
> simple datastore, not much unlike shelve. And network use is not one
> of them, since you can actually implement concurrent sqlite access by
> coding an intermediate layer. Assuming of course we are talking about
> a small number of concurrent users.

This is what I was saying: it's fine for purposes like Firefox's
bookmarks and settings and such (which I think was what it was
originally developed for?). Not so fine over a network.

Adding an intermediate layer is a lot more effort than you might
think. By the time you've gone there, you should be looking at
PostgreSQL anyway. I tried to bolt networking support onto a couple of
different databasing systems, back in the 90s, and it was faintly
ridiculous... I mean, it worked, but if I'd had today's Postgres, I
would never have done anything of the sort.

ChrisA