Hey,
I got forward your message from a friend, and I'd figure I'd just weigh
in.
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl> writes:
> > Better hurry. Sterling Hughes is proposing to enable SQlite support by
> > default; that move could be bad for the lobbying of activating Pg
> > support.
>
> SQlite? Sure, give it a try. (I was slightly astonished to compare
> these two pages:
> http://www.hwaci.com/sw/sqlite/omitted.html
> http://www.hwaci.com/sw/sqlite/datatypes.html
> At the very least, one would have to say that the author feels free
> to define those parts of SQL he doesn't like as "not features". There
> sure isn't anything on the former page to suggest that vast parts of
> the SQL spec are being ignored per the latter page.)
Yep. In fact I would go as far to say that SQLite is really just a nice
interface to a DBM.
> SQlite is even less competition from our point of view than MySQL is
> ... if the PHP guys think their users will be satisfied with SQlite,
> let them try it for awhile.
>
This is actually my point in choosing SQLite. I've used both MySQL and
PostgreSQL extensively, and I like both systems alot (please, I don't
mean to start a war on which database is better here.) SQLite is not
really a competitor to either of these solutions. MySQL and PostgreSQL
are both database servers, SQLite isn't. Just because they all speak a
SQL dialect, certainly doesn't mean they are the same thing.
But one of the most common things that people want to do with PHP is
save data. Many sites don't require a relational database system. For
example, implementing a weblog system with a RDBM system is overkill.
SQLite fills the nice nicely. It provides a coherent system for doing
simple stuff. No need to worry about locking, data formats, etc. And
most importantly, no database server is required, so you can write an
app for sqlite, and have it always available, on every shared host.
-Sterling
--
"Microsoft isn't evil, they just make really crappy operating systems."
- Linus Torvalds
