SQL and other databases
bobs at twft.com
Tue Mar 22 15:28:55 CDT 2011
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.
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 <pete at 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 at lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
More information about the use-livecode