Sign in or Join to comment or subscribe

2021-05-02T06:27:57Z ago

“SQLite is probably the only database you will ever need in most cases.”

That suggests that using anythin other than SQLite is singificantly more difficult or expensive and that’s not true. Pretty much every hosting company supplies dedicated database servers with builtin backups, failover etc. There is no need to run your own databases at all.

“Even if you start out small and later need to upscale, as long as your web application can run on the same machine as the database, which it can in 99% of the time,”

The fact that it has to run on the same machine disqualifies SQLite for larger scale operations. Sure, you can move everything to a faster, larger server, but as soon as you hit any serious size you’ll want to eliminate the single-server plan because it is a really really bad idea. really bad, like… bad.

“You can split up your database into multiple separate databases, and you can even give each user his/hers own database on the server.”

Literaly every other database engine can do this though… you’re not showing advantages of SQLite, just odd database designs, which might suggest that they are workarounds for shortcomings in SQLite….

I get the feeling that this article was written either by someone who really really likes SQLite, or someone who has never had any good experiences with any other databases and that may simply be that it’s not their thing, that’s fine, database administration is a niche and not everybody likes it no matter how simple it is. But both colour the article to a level that I don’t think it’s that useful, it’s a promo that suggests problems that don’t really exists and tries to plug advantages that aren’t real advantages.

Again; I’m not saying that SQLite is bad, but this article defends it in an odd way.

0:00 / 0:00