On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 11:47:10PM +0200, Thomas Wouters wrote: > Con: > > * Competing Python wrappers exist > > * SQLite itself is updated frequently, let alone the wrappers > > * Build integration risks unknown, possible delay of 2.5? > > * Another external library to track and maybe have emergency updates of > > All of these con arguments go for bsddb, too, and without sounding too > negative about bsddb, I believe SQLite is a *much* better solution than > BerkeleyDB, for roughly the same problem space. The same goes for pysqlite > vs. bsddb. IMNSHO, SQLite and pysqlite are much easier to use correctly than > BerkelyDB and bsddb, for simple and complex tasks. I may be biased against > bsddb because I spent too much time hunting refleaks in it, but I'm not > biased in favour of SQLite -- I'm a PostgreSQL user myself. ;-P
Agreed. sqlite is a joy to use. Its simple. It provides table structure that anyone can understand. BerkeleyDB is very powerful but requires a much more serious time investment to use usefully than sqlite for anything other than simple dictionary-like data storage. I wanted sqlite to exist for years. The intentionally undocumented bsddb.db.dbtables module i hacked together in early 2000 would never have been written had sqlite existed at the time. other things available at the time (gadfly anyone?) just didn't seem right. > probably a good thing. I would probably choose sqlite instead of > shelve/anydbm/bsddb if it were part of the standard library, even though > it's probably installed on all my machines anyway. I guess it's a psych > thing. > > As for people asking about deadlocks, well, I much rather explain about > sqlite deadlocks than about BerkelyDB transactions. yep. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
