'Lite' Databases (Re: sqlite3 and dates)

[Ben Finney]

memilanuk <memilanuk at gmail.com> writes:

> 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?

What do you need a RDBMS to do, and what do you not need?

The answers to those questions vary hugely between different people (and
most people probably don't think too deeply about them). They will
determine what “good” means for your case.

> Is there nothing that amounts to a 'PostgreSQLite'?

PostgreSQL itself fits that mould quite well; it is quite capable of
serving a small footprint while still offering full concurrency.

I don't know of a free-software concurrent RDBMS which can be considered
lighter than that. (No, MySQL doesn't count; its concurrency is
*unreliable* and it commonly loses data silently. Don't use MySQL.)

But perhaps you don't need concurrency? Only you can tell us.

-- 
 \      “It's up to the masses to distribute [music] however they want |
  `\    … The laws don't matter at that point. People sharing music in |
_o__)        their bedrooms is the new radio.” —Neil Young, 2008-05-06 |
Ben Finney