[barrkel]

Every time I've used sqlite for any kind of throwaway web app, I've regretted it due to the almost complete lack of support for concurrent operations. Sqlite is for file formats, not anything that might have concurrent writes.

[h2odragon]

> Sqlite is for file formats, not anything that might have concurrent writes

Thats very well put and excellent advice. I still bust out in giggles that we're in a world where "SQL for file formats" is a thing.

[asdkhadsj]

TIL. I really thought SQLite had better support for concurrent behavior.

Do you know if the problem you cite is distinct separate processes of SQLite? Ie, can a single process (aka one web app) handle concurrent behavior properly with SQLite? Or will it fail even in that scenario?

[Spooky23]

Why write code to deal with that complexity when you can just use pg or MySQL?

[asdkhadsj]

Because depending on the use case you don't want to run a 2nd server. For example, I work on some FOSS that lets users self host. The intention is for minimally experienced users to self host, as well as host on small laptops/etc. For obvious reasons, spinning up a full database has issues - requiring them to install Docker or etc is not feasible.

With that said, knowing how DB concurrency behaves in inherently concurrent applications (anything HTTP facing, for example) seems vital. If it needs to be not concurrent, it's paramount to know that.

To be clear, knowing how and when the concurrency breaks down does not mean advocating for it. Merely that if concurrency wasn't supported, you may need to write your applications differently to properly lock the non-threadsafe behavior.