On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 01:14:02AM +0300, Dmitry Igrishin <dmitigr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > чт, 8 окт. 2020 г. в 00:14, raf <raf@xxxxxxx>: > > > > On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 01:53:44PM +0300, Dmitry Igrishin <dmitigr@xxxxxxxxx> 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.
