From: "Ara.T.Howard" <ahoward@...>
Date: 2004-05-19T09:13:48+09:00
Subject: Re: Windows desktop app w/ simple db; how?

On Wed, 19 May 2004, Hal Fulton wrote:

> Carl Youngblood wrote:
> 
> >> However, does anyone have any suggestions about the database?  There 
> >> is too much data to use an in-memory store like Madeline, but I don't 
> >> want the users to have to explicitly install any sort of database 
> >> engine, either.
> >>
> > I can think of nothing better than sqlite.  It is amazingly fast, 
> > supports all the SQL you need (including subselects), is very easy to 
> > extend, and best of all, is completely embedded into the client--it 
> > doesn't use a "server" at all.
> 
> Someone was suggesting that to me the other day.
> 
> What if I don't really need SQL -- should I still use it? Is it as fast as,
> say, DBM?
> 
> 
> Hal


no - not as fast.  i keep looking at this too, but my tests can consistently
core dump the sqlite interpreter... not exactly confidence instilling...

also - depending on your data even PStore can be faster - i just depends on
the size of the data, how it is laid out, how much memory you have (eg can the
entire database fit in memory at once or not), and what type of queries you
run - though it _is_ quite fast.  for my own stuff i just keep coming back to
some sort of object store - Madeline or PStore (or my new NFSStore) - or a
full blown RDBMS like postgresql.  sqlite is cool but, if you can program ruby
(don't __NEED__ sql), i can never seem to justify the extra dependancy... of
course multi app access would justify this - but that's not common for
embedded aps.

my 2cts.

-a
-- 
===============================================================================
| EMAIL   :: Ara [dot] T [dot] Howard [at] noaa [dot] gov
| PHONE   :: 303.497.6469
| ADDRESS :: E/GC2 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80305-3328
| URL     :: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/
| "640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates, 1981
===============================================================================