SQLite would be most comparable to *SQL Server Express LocalDB* edition which is introduced in this July 2011 blog post https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/sqlexpress/2011/07/12/introducing-localdb-an-improved-sql-express/
More uptodate information about *SQL Server Express LocalDB* edition is in this 2016 Microsoft Developer's Network (MSDN) article https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh510202.aspx This page "*Appropriate Uses for SQLite*" (whentouse.html) describes BOTH "*Situations Where SQLite Works Well*" and "*Situations Where A Client/Server RDBMS May Work Better*" http://sqlite.org/whentouse.html Opening lines of whentouse.html: "SQLite is not directly comparable to client/server SQL database engines such as MySQL, Oracle, PostgreSQL, or SQL Server since SQLite is trying to solve a different problem. Client/server SQL database engines strive to implement a shared repository of enterprise data. ...SQLite strives to provide local data storage for individual applications and devices." Even Microsoft has adopted SQLite for some limited tasks (such as storing state) within every shipping copy of Windows 10. "SQLite is a unique case: it is an open source, externally developed software that is used by core system components, and our flagship apps like Cortana and Skype. ...After shipping SQLite as a system component in July, we wanted to include it in our SDK for November. With more than 20,000 Windows Apps and more than half of our top apps using SQLite, it made sense to just make expose the system SQLite to app developers." http://engineering.microsoft.com/2015/10/29/sqlite-in-windows-10/ There is a historical and unfair (specially compiled version of SQLite against default settings of PostgreSQL) benchmark available on this page, but now that you understand the use cases, this particular benchmark is not that useful in addition to being out of date and unfair. https://www.sqlite.org/speed.html Jim Callahan Data Scientist https://www.linkedin.com/in/jamesbcallahan Orlando, FL On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Simon Slavin <slavins at bigfraud.org> wrote: > > On 15 Feb 2016, at 9:41pm, James K. Lowden <jklowden at schemamania.org> > wrote: > > > SQL Server has none of those restrictions, and probably keeps pace with > > SQLite even on its home turf. But the administration of SQL Server is > > nontrivial. For that reason alone, I would never use it in situations > > where SQLite would do. > > That's the fella. Major advantage of SQLite: zero admin. Not even a > background task. > > Second advantage: you know exactly where you data is. Better still, it's > simple: one database == one file, and the file has the same name as the > database. I remember trying to reconstruct a MySQL database from a dead > server. One folder with a confusing mass of files in. Your database is > part of some of those files, but the files may be huge even if the one > database you care about is tiny. That was not a fun time. > > Simon. > _______________________________________________ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users >
