Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I am curios why some prefer MYSQL over SQLITE, i am interested on learning MYSQL
SQLite is an embedded library, it requires no server process, and everything it saves is contained within a single, portable file. MySQL is an RDBMS server that's a lot more work to set up, but is multi-user, more scalable, and far more featured.
For example, SQLite is used for mobile applications as well as "development" instances of code where it's only lightly loaded. It can be used at scale but generally isn't, its simple design has limitations.
If you're writing a mobile application and need a local database, SQLite is not a bad call. Spinning up a huge, cumbersome MySQL process to do the same thing on a mobile device is a bad plan.
Although they're both "SQL databases" and have a lot of functional overlap, they're engineered to solve some very different problems. In some trivial use cases it might be an arbitrary choice as to which is best, but in most cases it's pretty obvious which of the two you need.
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm needing to make a stand-alone application with NodeJS for Windows, Mac, and Linux
My first option for the database was SQLite but it's very small for my big data
My reason for using MySQL is that support many data and it's quickly
But the big problem is installing MySQL that it's hard to install it with end-user
And the important note is I packaging the NodeJS project and convert to exe file
Also, I use mosquito broker in this project and still no problem in the run this application.
Can I use MySQL like SQLite (stand-alone)?
Thanks
It's bad if you think Sqlite is weak
Because it's the best choice for your needing
It's simple, high performance, stand-alone and many features
My suggestion is using SQLite
Finally, I decide to use the same Sqlite because :
"SQLite supports databases up to 140 terabytes in size"
Also, I assign database file for each device and I think that is the best solution without Mysql database
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
In absolute terms, Postgres has more features and has been used at scale by Instagram, etc. while MySQL has a much bigger user base and has been used at scale by likes of Facebook, Quora, etc. But how about in combination with NodeJS?
Which is more popular with NodeJS?
MySQL is probably more popular, solely in terms of userbase. (You sorta answered this yourself)
MySQL probably has more examples around the net which could help make things easier to set up. You'll probably also find MySQL more likely to come preloaded on a VPS if that's the sort of route you're taking. However setting up PostgreSQL on your server is not difficult, and there is plenty of documentation available.
It really depends on what your intentions are with your data. Digital Ocean wrote a nice concise comparison of MySQL and PostgreSQL found here
As far as how these play with node.js, in my experience the node modules for PostgreSQL and MySQL are equally pleasant to work with. Ultimately its more about picking the database that suits your data and what you want to do with your data. Then deciding how it fits into your node stack.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Please read before you answer: I don't need any opinion-based answers or "nosql vs sql which is better" debates on the subject, just facts.
I want to slowly convert a php+mysql website I wrote with Symfony2 into a real time application using backbone with nodeJs + websockets.
I want to make a slow transition by changing single features, since I don't want to break a fully functional site.
I have been educating myself about NodeJs by reading books and watching Tutorials and there is one thing I noticed, I own more than 5 nodeJs books and none of them use MySql although its fully supported by node.
They all use MongoDB.
Here is my situation
1. My Website is already integrated into MySql(Doctrine)
2. My MySQL setup is fully functional and needs no improvements so far
I'm really frustated and I have a few questions:
Why is MySql not prefered although its a more mature piece of technology?
What are the advantages of moving to MongoDB over MySQL for the purpose of having a real-time application??
I've seen people choose Node/Mongo development because of the simplicity of the all-JavaScript stack, I've seen people choose Mongo because it's the New Hotness, and I've seen people choose Mongo because it's actually the right tool for the job: they have a large amount of document-like, unstructured data and/or they want to take advantage of Mongo's support for horizontal scaling, among other differences between MySQL and Mongo.
I'm not sure it's possible to answer this question in a non-opinion-based manner and without touching on Sql vs NoSql. Mongo is simply a tool, and it happens to be free and commonly used in the field with Node. If I were writing a Node tutorial, I'd probably choose Mongo too, because it's common and it's cool.
If Mongo is the right tool for your site's use cases, then the transition is probably worth it. If MySQL is the right tool for your site, then congratulations! You've just saved a bunch of time rewriting your DB in Mongo.
As an aside- if your question uses the word "preferred", I can't really think of a way for it to not be opinion-based, by definition.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm currently setting up ghost on my server. I will host my own blog and probably some more for my friends.
Ghost uses sqlite per default. Sqlite is good for small applications and development environments.
I plan to run my blog for at least 1 - 2 years or longer if ghost will work out well. A blog contains a lot of images and text. The sqlite db will grow over time with more and more images and so on.
Is it ok to use sqlite for this purpose for several years? MySQL would be much more powerful but also more complex to setup.
What would be the best choice for a Ghost Blog?
Please note that database performance depends not so much on the amount of data (until you run out of local disk space) but on the amount of concurrency.
The SQLite documentation says:
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.
[…]
But if your website is so busy that you are thinking of splitting the database component off onto a separate machine, then you should definitely consider using an enterprise-class client/server database engine instead of SQLite.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I have two problems with MySQL and started wondering if I should switch to Postgres
1 - Incremental backups are only available on the paid version of MySQL.
2 - It seems that mySQL has performance issues in some cases
So, are these two problems solved with Postgres?
I guess that PostgreSQL's continuous archiving can be considered a valid alternative
for every dbms you can find plenty anecdotal evidence of situations they cannot handle properly/quickly, or only with massive help in the form of cunning query rewrites, data remodelling and whatnot. Just look around here on SO or on any of the thousands of db-centered sites all over the net to see what I mean.
In short, where 1 can be a solid argument to justify a switch (and especially from a business point of view), I wouldn't be overly concerned about 2. And if your db is slow because your datamodel is not performance friendly, you'll just carry over slowness.