[hehdhdjehehegwv]

The number of societal-wide problems that occur if your Lightroom database gets corrupted is zero.

The amount of hell that would be unleashed if the financial systems layers upon layers of database transactions got broken is impossible to comprehend.

So if you mean “important” as “necessary for society to function”, then no, your browser bookmark files, contact list, or the other two dozen things your laptop and phone use SQLite for are not important.

[tibbar]

This is a false equivalence, as one user’s particular usage of SQLite is not comparable to all financial instructions’ databases.

Better to compare to the prospect of all smartphones being irreversibly corrupted at once.

[hehdhdjehehegwv]

Literally all smartphones dying at once is preferable because they are all backed up into heavy duty databases. You can restore every phone from the cloud in this thought experiment.

You can not restore a data center from a pile of phones.

[wavemode]

The goalposts keep moving here. You can just take any arbitrary definition of important and use it to exclude SQLite deployments.

It's all semantics, and also irrelevant to the original article anyway, since nowhere does it argue that SQLite holds the most data (important or otherwise).

[hehdhdjehehegwv]

I didn’t comment earlier so I can’t move a goalpost I never set down. I agree with the root comment that there may be more instances of SQLite, the most important data is not in SQLite.

For what it’s worth, I have used any number of databases over the years and SQLite is very good for a number of things.

None of those things are the core infrastructure that stores your emails, money, and other must have, shared, high availability data.

There are different tools for different jobs, that’s fine.