To add to the responses, we use SQLite for our main database which is currently around 60GB in size, so size isn?t an issue for SQLite. I am aware of other people with far, far larger SQLite databases. We did a quick test and ran up to a couple of hundred DB?s of data in SQLIte and it seemed fine.
We chose SQLite over other databases as 1. We didn?t need concurrency. All our data is written and read by a single process. 2. Its very lightweight. We can move the database around by simply copying the file which is fantastic for our use. 3. The speed is very, very fast. We haven?t found any significant speed differences FOR OUR USE CASE between Sqlite and other ?bigger? databases. YMMV. 4. The support is top notch. I have brought and paid for govt scale databases for governments and to be honest the support for SQLite is just as good, and to be honest I would say better than Big Red or Big Blue (and I used to work for Big Blue). Thats not to say that SQLite is perfect, its not, however no database is perfect as everyones usage is different. I certainly wouldn?t state that SQLite is the answer to everyones problems and I can state with absolute certainty that DB2 is also not the answer for every use. We are moving into a different phase of our development and we are investigating PostGIS for some of our work now, as that *MAY* be a better tool for some of our more exotic spatial queries and analysis. No reflection on SQLite but its a case of finding the right tool for the right job. After saying that we *may* end up using SQLite for this area as well. Rob On 15 Feb 2016, at 8:20, R Smith wrote: > On 2016/02/15 5:21 AM, admin at shuling.net wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I am just curious whether there is a performance comparison between >> SQLite >> and SQL Server? Surely SQL Server will perform better on huge >> database with >> thousands of tables(more than 10GB size). But whether SQLite will >> perform >> better on smaller database such as one database with one table that >> is less >> than 1GB? >> >> Thanks > > Some other replies have hinted at this already, but to expand: The one > isn't faster than the other in all cases. There are ways in which > SQLite is much faster even on a 100GB database - the "Lite" in SQLite > doesn't mean database size - it pertains more to the available > function-set. It can handle the very large DB's just as well as any > other. > > Where SQLite lacks (due to the "Lite"-ness) is in not having > user-access control, not having programmability (stored procedures and > functions, but then you can add custom functions to SQLite in C even, > which you can't easily do with the others, especially not with MSSQL). > The largest difference however, is that an SQLite connection operates > on (talks-to) a file, and the others usually talk to a server. > > The main advantage of SQLite is that it can be used for an application > file format to your program, complete as if it was a database in > itself (which, actually, it is), and moreover, you can embed the > entire DB in your application and on your hardware etc - like the > billions of handheld devices, phones, tablets, etc. that uses SQLite > daily. > > For more information, see: > http://www.sqlite.org/whentouse.html > > To answer your speed question - it depends on data shape, size, IO > access speeds, Memory on the generation machine etc. Import big > datasets in both MSSQL and SQlite, run some queries, chances are some > queries be slightly faster in SQLite, and some are slightly faster in > MSSQL. Single query performance is not really the driver of that > decision. > > Cheers, > Ryan > > _______________________________________________ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
