Most active commenters
  • andersmurphy(3)

←back to thread

306 points emschwartz | 14 comments | | HN request time: 0.399s | source | bottom
1. petcat ◴[] No.46234956[source]
Are people still trying to shoehorn sqlite to run in a server-side context? I thought that was a fad that everyone gave up on.
replies(7): >>46235036 #>>46235082 #>>46235231 #>>46235259 #>>46235272 #>>46235793 #>>46236871 #
2. ashish01 ◴[] No.46235036[source]
I use Litestream for near real-time backups. Does not change how SQLite is used on the server, just a replacement for .backup
3. mhitza ◴[] No.46235082[source]
No, it's still pretty cool, easy to use with low operational complexity in low volume read-mostly projects: CMSs, blogs, ecommerce platforms.
replies(2): >>46235694 #>>46236884 #
4. jtbayly ◴[] No.46235231[source]
I am. Super simple. Super cheap. Great dev experience. Want to know whether the migration is going to work? Just download the prod db locally and test it. I'm happy.
replies(1): >>46235263 #
5. 9rx ◴[] No.46235259[source]
People are building DBMSes and, instead of writing the engine from scratch, are choosing an off-the-shelf solution that integrates into a DBMS with ease.

A better question to ask is why the world needs yet another DBMS, but the reasons are no doubt valid.

6. christophilus ◴[] No.46235263[source]
Works for very small prod databases, I guess.
replies(3): >>46235353 #>>46236901 #>>46238347 #
7. jauntywundrkind ◴[] No.46235272[source]
For things like config management I feel like it makes all the sense in the world. Whomever the primary is can soak some infrequent-ish write-load. Then the whole DB can quickly copy to where it's needed, or, in lite stream VFS 's case, even less needs to be shipped.
8. tptacek ◴[] No.46235353{3}[source]
We use it internally for some rather large databases. It's not database size that matters, it's usage pattern.
9. ◴[] No.46235694[source]
10. 0xbadcafebee ◴[] No.46235793[source]
I am a heavy skeptic of this thing, but I can see a good use case for it: S3 I/O, ephemeral compute (1 instance), versioned blobs. The first two allow you to abstract the data away from the compute (flexibility), and the third lets you recover from mistakes or bugs quicker (or do immutable migrations easier).

I think the devil's in the details though. I expect a high number of unusual bugs due to the novel code, networking, and multiple abstractions. I'd need to trial it for a year before I called it reliable.

11. andersmurphy ◴[] No.46236871[source]
Nope, still going strong.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46124205

12. andersmurphy ◴[] No.46236884[source]
It's got crazy write throughput too if you hold it right.
13. andersmurphy ◴[] No.46236901{3}[source]
Handles billions of rows just fine. Can take you unreasonably far on a single server.
14. victorbjorklund ◴[] No.46238347{3}[source]
What is a very small database? At what size do you think read queries stops working in SQLite?