Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by emn13 2871 days ago
It's faster? Simpler?

Conversely, why would you choose one of those alternatives?

(I don't actually think there aren't any reasons to do so, mind you, but I can well imagine that if you really KISS, well - even at impressive sizes sqlite makes sense).
2 comments
vesak 2871 days ago
SQLite's typing is rather weak, is it not? That might be a tad scary for someone used who relies on that part of PostgreSQL.
link
kjax 2871 days ago
It sure is. After recently porting a large application from SQLite to Postgres, much of my time was spent casting types and ensuring code was updated to input the correct types into Postgres. All in all, the changes were for the better, as many bugs were discovered and resolved in the process.
link
da_chicken 2870 days ago
Well, the historic one is, "because you need multiple concurrent data writers."

But, that's what this branch is supposed to be for. So now the reason is: "because you need multiple concurrent data writers from multiple processes." And it might also be "you need multiple concurrent data writers and care about your data enough to not risk loss in the event of a system crash or power failure" since it uses PRAGMA synchronous=OFF.

link