[Python-Dev] pysqlite for 2.5? (original) (raw)

Gregory P. Smith greg at electricrain.com
Thu Mar 30 09:48:43 CEST 2006

On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 11:47:10PM +0200, Thomas Wouters wrote:

Con: > * Competing Python wrappers exist > * SQLite itself is updated frequently, let alone the wrappers > * Build integration risks unknown, possible delay of 2.5? > * Another external library to track and maybe have emergency updates of

All of these con arguments go for bsddb, too, and without sounding too negative about bsddb, I believe SQLite is a much better solution than BerkeleyDB, for roughly the same problem space. The same goes for pysqlite vs. bsddb. IMNSHO, SQLite and pysqlite are much easier to use correctly than BerkelyDB and bsddb, for simple and complex tasks. I may be biased against bsddb because I spent too much time hunting refleaks in it, but I'm not biased in favour of SQLite -- I'm a PostgreSQL user myself. ;-P

Agreed. sqlite is a joy to use. Its simple. It provides table structure that anyone can understand. BerkeleyDB is very powerful but requires a much more serious time investment to use usefully than sqlite for anything other than simple dictionary-like data storage.

I wanted sqlite to exist for years. The intentionally undocumented bsddb.db.dbtables module i hacked together in early 2000 would never have been written had sqlite existed at the time. other things available at the time (gadfly anyone?) just didn't seem right.

probably a good thing. I would probably choose sqlite instead of shelve/anydbm/bsddb if it were part of the standard library, even though it's probably installed on all my machines anyway. I guess it's a psych thing.

As for people asking about deadlocks, well, I much rather explain about sqlite deadlocks than about BerkelyDB transactions.

yep.

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list