On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Andrew Piskorski wrote: >On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 02:16:01PM +0100, Christian Smith wrote: >> Right tool for the job. Multiple writers has client/server database >> written all over it. KISS. > >No, not true, at least not when the multiple writers are all threads >within one single process, which appears to be the common case for >people who'd like greater concurrency in SQLite.
SQLite is an embedded database engine, which I guess is it's main use (I'm using it at my place to implement a package management tool) and the desired concurrency from what I gather on the list is read access while writing, not multiple writers. > >Also, if multiple writers worked well for the one-process many-threads >case, then if you wished you could write a small multi-threaded >client/server database using SQLite as the underlying storage engine. >As things stand now, the concurrency limitations mean there isn't much >point to doing that. But why re-invent the wheel. There are plenty of client/server databases that support concurrent writes. > >Simplicity however, is of course an important concern. Absolutely, that's my main point. I'm all for the concurrent readers/writer, but multiple writers is a whole new ball game, probably best left to the big boys. Cheers, Christian -- /"\ \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN - AGAINST HTML MAIL X - AGAINST MS ATTACHMENTS / \ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]