I want to develop a PHP application. And I don't want to use MySQL for my application. And I will need full-text search feature for my application. I want to know that which database is best for my needs, Flat file or SQLite database for full-text search. Please suggest me some advantages and disadvantages for both databases.
If you have to ask, sqlite is better. It works and is fast.
The advantage of using a flat-file over it is that you have no dependencies on sqlite. The disadvantages of using it is that you don't have any indexes built in, so all queries will be slower. It will take a lot of effort to develop it and make sure it is bug free.
Related
I need to write documentation for several small sqlite databases. Want to describe how the data is used, including table and row descriptions and sample data.
Is it possible to use MySQL Workbench? If not are there any alternatives, or any templates I could work from?
TIA!
Using MySQL Workbench is not possible since, as far as I know, it only supports exporting to SQLite. For a number of suggestions about free database managers you might want to take a look at What are good open source GUI SQLite database managers? - a number of the GUIs mentioned there support report generation.
Definitely far more feature rich, but with a significant price tag, is Navicat for SQLite, which is an excellent database manager with report generation features.
I am creating a ASP.NET application that is pretty much self contained, it will be pushed to different hosts and as a result will include an embedded database engine - I did look at SQLite but that can not run under medium trust and that could be an issue, so it looks like it is going to have to be Microsoft SQL Server Compact Edition 4.
Microsoft SQL Server Compact Edition does not support stored procedures and because of such I'm wondering where the best place to include the SQL code would be, taking into account future edits, etc.
So far I think that my options are either directly embedded in the code as a String or Stringbuilder type (which can get messy for advanced queries), or maybe in SQL files stored in the App_GlobalResources folder - the second option is something something that I have only just considered, but think that that would be a pretty good option for containment and future editing - does anyone have any other suggestions?
Regards, Nathan.
You can store parameterized queries in your resource file.
You can use MS SQL Express. It is free, it has stored procedures, but it has 4GB database size limit (increased to 10 GB for SQL Server Express 2008 R2).
For more information read this.
I think it's better to use some ORM tool or LINQ to SQL, than store native SQL strings.
Like other have said an ORM, Entity Framework or Linq to SQL is probably better than inline SQL, however as your question wasn't asking about any of these I would suggest storing you SQL files as embedded resources. Others have mentioned resource resource files but I feel that resource files are difficult to use and you do not have an nice IDE to develop within. Having embedded .SQL files should be easier to version control, use within Visual Studio, allow you to keep your queries as closely as possible to your data access components and make it difficult to change once in a production environment.
I've been looking into a lot of database's recently, and am not sure if it's because I'm bored or what, but I want to create a few web applications using database's other than MS SQL Server. Any suggestions that tie into ASP.NET nicely?
I'd recommend VistaDB and MySql.
I'd consider MySQL as the obvious alternative.
However, fundamentally one relational database is pretty much the same as another, more so when accessed through something like ADO.NET. If you're bored with SQL Server then rather than looking for an alternative why not look at trying different data access strategies?
You don't mention whether or not you're using an ORM (object relational mapper) which can make working with databases a lot more enjoyable than using standard ADO.NET, such as:
NHibernate
Entity Framework
Linq to SQL
Subsonic
IMO, sticking with SQL Server but trying out a few different ORM's would be much more interesting than switching to a different database altogether.
Or how about looking into using a document database, such as RavenDB?
I suggest you take a look at Connectionstrings.com. Most databases there have a .NET provider available.
Define "good".
Do you want to have a database as a simple data store, or should the database also implement business logic (stored procedures, triggers)?
Do you want to ship your apps and therefore require easy of installation?
Does it matter if the database is commercial, when MSSQL offers a free version?
As #richeym pointed out: are SQL statement a sufficient interface, or do you require an ORM?
I'm building a small ASP.NET MVC site where I want to use SQLite. While I already know how I will be connecting to the database (using DbLinq), I don't understand how to put the ASP.NET tables generated by aspnet_regsql.exe into an SQLite database.
I've used the regsql tool before with SQL Server, but never with SQLite. How do I create them for the SQLite DB?
One strategy that I think might somehow work is:
Use aspnet_regsql.exe to create the tables into an empty SQL Server database
Script all the objects in the database into T-SQL
Apply the T-SQL to the SQLite DB (how?)
Take a look at http://salient.codeplex.com
the Web.SQLite directory contains a drop in replacement for the default SQL providers.
It was a proof of concept that turned out ok. It uses EF, so is not as performant as it could be but should service low/medium traffic sites without issue.
You should be able to exclude all other files except that subdirectory and build it in isolation if desired. This will allow you to also trim the references.
Let me know if you have any issues.
You could try it with SQL Server Compact Edition 4 which is an embeddable SQL engine like SQLite but has an easier upgrade path if you need to grow it up to SQL Express or SQL Server.
Unfortunately the aspnet_regsql will not work with SQLite, so your strategy is essentially the correct approach. However, I would suggest looking at something like Roger Martin's Gallery Server Pro, which uses SQLite and already has the Membership, Role, and Profile provider tables scripted. You can make use of the script. See Roger's Code Project article from more information.
I don't know how authoritative this is but I found this:
http://www.sqlite.org/cvstrac/wiki?p=PerformanceConsiderations
and it doesn't seem good to have a lot of connections to sqlite. This seems to be bad for the web and most applications that have more than a few users. I'm having a hard time thinking of what sqlite would be used for when you don't need that many connections. Every program I can think of needs users, lots of them sometimes, so what would I use a database for that doesn't allow that many connections? I thought about prototypes but why would I use that when I can just connect to a larger database? Embedded apps maybe?
Thank you.
EDIT: Thanks everyone. I look at the page recommended below but an confused about something:
Under appropriate uses for sqlite it has:
Situations Where SQLite Works Well
•Websites
SQLite usually will work great as the database engine for low to medium traffic websites (which is to say, 99.9% of all websites). The amount of web traffic that SQLite can handle depends, of course, on how heavily the website uses its database. Generally speaking, any site that gets fewer than 100K hits/day should work fine with SQLite. The 100K hits/day figure is a conservative estimate, not a hard upper bound. SQLite has been demonstrated to work with 10 times that amount of traffic.
Situations Where Another RDBMS May Work Better
•Client/Server Applications
If you have many client programs accessing a common database over a network, you should consider using a client/server database engine instead of SQLite. SQLite will work over a network filesystem, but because of the latency associated with most network filesystems, performance will not be great. Also, the file locking logic of many network filesystems implementation contains bugs (on both Unix and Windows). If file locking does not work like it should, it might be possible for two or more client programs to modify the same part of the same database at the same time, resulting in database corruption. Because this problem results from bugs in the underlying filesystem implementation, there is nothing SQLite can do to prevent it.
A good rule of thumb is that you should avoid using SQLite in situations where the same database will be accessed simultaneously from many computers over a network filesystem.
The Question:
I'm going to show my ignorance here but what is the difference between these two?
This is answered well by sqlite itself : Appropriate use of sqlite
Another way to look at SQLite is this:
SQLite is not designed to replace Oracle. It is designed to replace fopen().
It's good for situations where you don't have access to a "real" database and still want the power of a relational db. For example, Firefox stores a bunch of information about your settings/history/etc in an SQLite database. You can't expect everyone that runs firefox to have MySQL or postgre installed on their machine.
It's also perfectly capable of running relatively-low traffic, read-heavy websites. The performance of it is overall very good, it's more than the large majority of websites need for their traffic levels.
It's often used for embedded applications.
It can be very handy to use a database like storage when you have no access to a database service. So SQLite is used since it's just a file you store somewhere.
I also find that using SQLite is good for getting a prototype application together pretty quickly without the overhead of having a seperate DB server or bogging a development environment with an instance of MySQL/Oracle/Whatever.
Also easy to pick up and move the database to a different machine if you need to.
The iPhone uses it for call history, SMS messages, contacts, and other type of data. Like Ólafur Waage said, good for embedded applications on mobile device because it's lightweight. I have used it also on stand alone applications. Easy to use and available on most platforms.
Think about simple client or desktop apps that could make use of a db, like as a poor example, an address book. Rather than bundling a huge db engine like mysql or postgre with your deliverable, sqlite is very lightweight and easy to include with your finished app.
This FLOSS Weekly podcast episode talks with the creator of SQLite and covers among other things goes over the type of things you would use it for. Everything from file systems for mobile phones to smallish web sites.
In the simplest terms, SQLite is a public-domain software package that provides a
relational database management system, or RDBMS. Relational database systems are
used to store user-defined records in large tables. In addition to data storage and management,
a database engine can process complex query commands that combine data
from multiple tables to generate reports and data summaries. Other popular RDBMS
products include Oracle Database, IBM’s DB2, and Microsoft’s SQL Server on the
commercial side, with MySQL and PostgreSQL being popular open source products.
The “Lite” in SQLite does not refer to its capabilities. Rather, SQLite is lightweight
when it comes to setup complexity, administrative overhead, and resource usage.
For detail info and solution about SQLite visit the link below:
http://blog.developeronhire.com/what-is-sqlite-sqlite/
Thank you.
What the above two answers say. Expanding slightly on Chad Birch's answer, its teh calls to the SQLite db, and a rather poor implementation of sync() that causes FF3 to be so slow in linux.