On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 01:14:02AM +0300, Dmitry Igrishin <dmitigr@gmail.com> wrote:
> чт, 8 окт. 2020 г. в 00:14, raf <raf@raf.org>:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 01:53:44PM +0300, Dmitry Igrishin <dmitigr@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In many cases concurrency is not a problem and in fact SQLite may
> > > handle concurrent requests faster than Postgres. Since SQLite is
> > > server-less and access overhead is near to zero (compared to Postgres)
> > > each writer does its work quickly and no lock lasts for more than a
> > > few dozen milliseconds.
> > > On the other hand, Postgres is better in cases of really high concurrency.
> >
> > Presumably, this is no longer a problem, but many years
> > ago (between 14 and 10 years ago) I was using sqlite
> > for a low traffic website (probably no more than 40
> > users at a time), and the database became corrupted so
> > often that I had had to automate rebuilding it from the
> > latest backup and my own sql logs. I was very silly.
> > Switching to postgres was the real solution.
>
> As for now SQLite is a very robust solution if used properly.
That's great to hear.