It's a pretty good alternative for people with low traffic, for "proof
of concept" projects and also for embedded appliances where memory is
limited and a regular db engine wouldn't fit.
Besides, I'm using the DBPool already implemented into Kannel and
trying to implement the same DB engines as Kannel does, so people
using sqlite for dlr's can use it for sqlbox as well.
Regards,
Alejandro Guerrieri
El 20/11/2008, a las 12:27 p.m., Thomas Göttgens escribió:
Hello Alejandro,
just out of curiousity, why do we bother with SQLITE anyway? It's
clearly designed for light usage, especially within web applications,
mostly db ready, maybe a few writes.
This can for sure not sustain even light usage from kannel. Sqlite is
essentially a file database like dbase with an sql frontend.
Thursday, November 20, 2008, 2:40:33 PM, you wrote:
AG> Alex,
AG> Sqlite makes a lock on the _whole DB file_ each time it access it.
AG> That means that if an external application is doing an INSERT on
AG> send_sms, it will lock the WHOLE FILE, so sqlbox won't get a
LOCK to
AG> DELETE on send_sms nor to INSERT on sent_sms.
AG> If the DB is to sustain moderate load, the default won't cut it.
I've
AG> experienced the error when trying to enqueue messages from
Sqlite's
AG> command line utility while running sqlbox. I'm talking about
sending a
AG> _single_ message on an idle sqlbox process.
AG> Using the default "busy_timeout" is too low for most practical
uses
AG> IMHO.
AG> For example, the PHP driver sets it to 60 seconds.
AG> If not allowed to change it on the DBPool, it should be set to
some
AG> more realistic value at least, or maybe even set a default and
allow
AG> the client to change it (I can modify the patch to accomodate
either
AG> case of course).
--
Best regards,
Thomas mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
