which database is suitable for small applications

Phil Runciman philr at aspexconsulting.co.nz
Mon Jun 1 22:30:53 CEST 2009


Hi Lawrence,

I appreciate your remarks. However database engines cache their table/views to support sequential accessing within a set. With a good accessing scheme and with enough cache memory you will have all your small tables in memory. 

So the simplest thing is let the DBMS do its thing. The good ones will cope quite happily. You then have the advantage that the app can grow without program changes.

It is a long time since I delved into DBMS internals (25 years) but I cannot see that they will have changed from what I have said above, however I am sure to be corrected if I am wrong. ;-)

Cheers,

phil


-----Original Message-----
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro [mailto:ldo at geek-central.gen.new_zealand] 
Sent: Sunday, 31 May 2009 11:21 p.m.
To: python-list at python.org
Subject: Re: which database is suitable for small applications

In message <52801358-c037-458d-8857-
a78c2d881ddb at z16g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Ankit wrote:

> If your application does not require you to add very heavy data then
> you can also use flat files to do your stuff.
> Its always a better to use Databases ...

It's not always better to use databases. By definition, data for a “small” 
application is bound to fit entirely in RAM. So certainly the simplest thing 
to do is read a whole data file in at the start, and write the entire 
updated data structure back out again at the end.




More information about the Python-list mailing list