>The biggest thing is probably easier deployment. > Actually, the main reason I believe is to reduce the memory footprint. SQLite runs in the the Squeezebox Server process, and apparently uses less memory overrall.
>Less dealing with firewalls and installing and managing another Windows >service. > It was a tad unfortunate that some virus scanners produced false positives with MySQL data files, giving it a bad name. It's not a fault with SqueezeCenter or MySQL, but with the virus scanners, etc. False positives could happen to any program. It could happen with SQLite. >also a quick and dirty way of implementing multiple libraries, with each >library occupying a separate database. > I don't see why that is a pro/con. Database engine shouldn't make much difference - you can have multiple databases in any DB engine. >Most of the problems right now are with the new scanning code, which is >mostly independent of the underlying database. > That's true. Most people seem to be saying that SQLite is slower than their MySQL setup, but that the scanning code is faster; the net gain seems to be that the overrall scanning process is a bit slower. Of course, it may not be a straight like-for-like comparison, because several popular plugins don't work, and therefore Squeezebox Server will have less stuff running in it (and also therefore a smaller memory footprint). Would have to do comparisons with vanilla Squeezebox Server installations (no plugins). I'd like to see other usage metrics - how much slower it is to search for a word in song titles, for example. _______________________________________________ beta mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/beta
