I don't think this is a fair comparison. sqLite is file based, and is likely going to be a local file at that. Of course that would be faster.
Bob On Mar 22, 2011, at 12:26 PM, Peter Haworth wrote: > Definitely feature-deprived in some areas for sure but still very capable > DBMS, depending on what your needs are. I haven't got round to benchmarks > yet (and probably won't), but I've read several things on the web that > suggest SQLite is much faster than mySQL. Of course if SQLite is missing a > feature you need, doesn't matter how much faster it is! > > Pete Haworth > > On Mar 22, 2011, at 11:13 AM, stephen barncard wrote: > >> Having delved into LITE for about 5 minutes and only using MY the last few >> years I had the impression that LITE was a feature-deprived version of >> MYSQL. Thanks for reporting. >> >> On 22 March 2011 10:29, Peter Haworth <p...@mollysrevenge.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Bob, >>> >> >> Stephen Barncard >> San Francisco Ca. USA >> >> more about sqb <http://www.google.com/profiles/sbarncar> >> _______________________________________________ >> use-livecode mailing list >> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com >> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription >> preferences: >> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode >> > > > _______________________________________________ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription > preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
