'Lite' Databases (Re: sqlite3 and dates)

[memilanuk]

On 02/18/2015 02:52 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:

> Chris also wrote:
>> But SQLite3 is *not* great if you look on it as a database engine
>> comparable with DB2, PostgreSQL, and even MySQL.
>
> Sure, the LITE in SQLite means you don't get some things.  There is still a huge amount of software that doesn't need
> concurrency and can benefit from it.
>
> Having installed Postgres I can say there is definitely a cost to install it, use it, maintain it, etc... especially if
> you aren't steeped in it and have to look things up every time you have to make a change (how do I add a user again?).
>
> I think the general advice should be:  if you are writing a single-user application that happens to need SQL services,
> check out SQLite; if you are writing a multi-user or concurrent SQL application, check out Postgres.

Okay... this might be a question with a blindingly obvious answer, but I 
haven't seen any recommendations otherwise so I'll ask anyway ;)

Is there anything *good* that sits in between the two extremes of SQLite 
and PostgreSQL?

I've tinkered with MySQL years ago (in conjunction with PHP) and was a 
little unhappy with some of the things it either didn't implement fully 
(foreign keys) or silently ignored (check constraints).  PostgreSQL, to 
me, is orders of magnitude harder to set up and maintain, though.  And 
then there is SQLite, which does 99% of what I want it to do other than 
network use.  I see other DB names such as DB2, Oracle, MS SQL Server, 
etc. out there but the only other 'free' one seems to be Firebird?  Is 
that really the only other contender?  Is there nothing that amounts to 
a 'PostgreSQLite'?


-- 
Shiny!  Let's be bad guys.

Reach me @ memilanuk (at) gmail dot com