Is it just me, or is Sqlite3 goofy?

Steve Holden steve at
Tue Sep 12 02:46:15 CEST 2006

Mike Owens wrote:
> On 9/11/06, Steve Holden <steve at> wrote:
>>Sure. But if you go back to the start of the thread you'll remember the
>>OP was originally complaining that SQLite was being promoted in the
>>Python docs as SQL compliant.
> Define "SQL compliant." That's about as technically precise as saying
> that something tastes like chicken.
> Furthermore, I'm not responding to Python's representation of one
> thing or another. I am responding to some of the ridiculous and unfair
> criticisms directed at SQLite. Whatever Python did or didn't do, or
> whatever PySQLite does or doesn't do, SQLite doesn't deserve to be
> drug through the mud.
Which is precisely why I took pains to acknowledge that there were many 
purposes for which SQLite is entirely suitable.
>>You shouldn't need to
>>add check constraints to verify that the value stored in an integer
>>column is actually an integer.
> You should if your using SQLite, and this is clearly documented:
Right. In which case, why bother to define the types of the columns in 
your table declarations?
>>I don't think anyone is trying to suggest that SQLite isn't a prefectly
>>good tool for many purposes: it's far more sophisticated than bsddb, for
>>example, and I've used both it and Gadfly (which has similar
>>deficiencies when compared to strict standards) with complete satisfaction.
> Then what does calling it crappy and goofy suggest?

That colloquial English expression is acceptable on this list.

Strict affinity mode seems to represent a movement towards more rigorous 
type checking. So the designers of SQLIte accept that it wasn't perfect. 
So what? Please, don't take on so. It's only ones and zeroes.

Steve Holden       +44 150 684 7255  +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC/Ltd
Skype: holdenweb
Recent Ramblings

More information about the Python-list mailing list