From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,469b2bba5f3a7bd
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Received: by 10.68.129.169 with SMTP id nx9mr1940903pbb.2.1334326000623;
        Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:06:40 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 r9ni51763pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!v22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: New AWS-based website
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 06:50:02 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <32c57df6-90ec-448a-8337-2db6d4d9c72c@v22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <76df311e-7bac-4326-bf21-b611c701ebeb@do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
 <2802410.1954.1334169612465.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pboo1>
 <56dc7a29-264f-4d76-b5e9-2610d18067f8@2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>
 <21586328.6.1334304311295.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynhs12>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.77.7.66
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1334326000 15004 127.0.0.1 (13 Apr 2012 14:06:40
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:06:40 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: v22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com; posting-host=213.77.7.66;
 posting-account=bMuEOQoAAACUUr_ghL3RBIi5neBZ5w_S
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-Via: 1.1 localhost (squid/3.1.6)
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 rv:11.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/11.0,gzip(gfe)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: 2012-04-13T06:50:02-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 13 Kwi, 10:05, Ludovic Brenta <ludo...@ludovic-brenta.org> wrote:

> I would use
> PostgreSQL as a second choice if I really needed to run the
> database and the web server on different machines or if there
> were more than one client connecting to the same database. =A0Is
> that your case?

I cannot exclude this will be the case in some future. We might need
to scale up and making some scalability provisions from the very
beginning was important.
There are already several clients connecting, as there are some batch
processing jobs running in the background. They are managed separately
from the main server process, so having them as tasks/threads within
the server was not an option.
A "real" RDBMS has lots of useful features that we intend to benefit
from and SQLite is not a valid choice.
To be frank, SQLite belongs to the same category of solutions as
template parsers mentioned previously - they are not needed in hello
world programs and they don't offer anything adequate in complex
systems either.

> (Oh and in case you ask: you do not need ODBC to talk to an
> SQLite database).

I know.

--
Maciej Sobczak * http://www.inspirel.com