E
E
etc2011-11-16 21:05:27
SQL
etc, 2011-11-16 21:05:27

SQL database on files for a simple site

Hey! There is a simple site at the initial stage of development, PHP 5.3, Apache 2. At first, no more than 100 records will be stored in the database, so you need a database on files with SQL syntax, so that in the future, when the number of records increases noticeably, you can safely switch to MySQL without changing fetch requests. What do you advise?

Answer the question

In order to leave comments, you need to log in

7 answer(s)
S
spiff, 2011-11-16
@spiff

How can you ask such a thing? www.sqlite.org/

S
Sergey Beresnev, 2011-11-17
@sectus

MySQL stores records in files and has SQL syntax...

Z
zapimir, 2011-11-16
@zapimir

Hmm, what's the problem with using MySQL right away so that you don't have to worry about moving later? Although both are in SQL, there are still some nuances. Well, MySQL would cost some extra money, but now even free hosting has it, not to mention the fact that paid hosting is hard to find without MySQL.

G
gro, 2011-11-17
@gro

Standard clinical topic.
First, people who are starting to figure it out come up with some optimization solutions that follow from assumptions based on absolutely nothing.
And then the same ones begin to breed dregs in the comments about the “fact of connecting to the base”.

V
Vladson, 2011-11-17
@Vladson

Some “solutions on files” (SQLite is not really one of them, but there are such “bicycle engines” that) end up eating, on the contrary, even more memory and processor time than MySQL.

A
Alexander, 2011-11-16
@akalend

If you use sqlite with the prospect of switching to MySQL,
then think over the issue of some kind of abstract add-on - an abstract class or a wrapper class, whatever you like better.

K
Kirill Mamaev, 2011-11-17
@r00tGER

By the way, what DBMS does not store data in files? And what kind of "software" that calls itself a DBMS does not have SQL syntax?
In any case, something that represents some kind of interface to some kind of mechanism requires overhead. Isn't it easier to abandon SQL altogether and work directly with files? But here, too, you can find a bunch of bottlenecks in performance.
My advice is to work directly with MySQL. To be honest, I don’t understand why this is only planned, and not used right away. Do you really experience performance problems with hundreds of records if you go the classical way, do you really need to be clever and win back these 30% in non-trivial ways?

Didn't find what you were looking for?

Ask your question

Ask a Question

731 491 924 answers to any question