What is the recommended python module for SQL database access?

Marcel Rodrigues marcelgmr at gmail.com
Sun Feb 9 13:04:40 CET 2014

I just checked in the Python sources and apparently you're right about
SQLite3. The Python distribution includes pysqlite which seems to be a
self-contained SQLite engine. No external dependencies. Sorry for the

2014-02-09 9:00 GMT-02:00 Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com>:

> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Marcel Rodrigues <marcelgmr at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > As Chris said, if your needs are simple, use SQLite back-end. It's
> probably
> > already installed on your computer and Python has a nice interface to it
> in
> > its standard library.
> Already installed? I thought the point of SQLite3 being in the Python
> stdlib was that Python actually included the entire engine (that's why
> there's no, for instance, PostgreSQL client in the stdlib - because
> there's no server; I disagree with the reasoning, but it is consistent
> and valid), so you don't need _anything_ externally installed.
> In any case, SQLite is ideal for really simple databasing. Back in the
> 1990s, I had DB2, DB2, and DB2, for all my database work. I wanted a
> way to query a dictionary of English words using SQL, so I created a
> DB2 database and threw ~60K rows into a table. Massive overkill for a
> one-column table. These days, I could use SQLite (or more likely, just
> use grep on /usr/share/dict/words - grep does everything that I wanted
> SQL for, if you include piping from one grep into another), cutting
> the overhead down enormously.
> The biggest downside of SQLite3 is concurrency. I haven't dug into the
> exact details of the pager system and such, but it seems to be fairly
> coarse in its locking. Also, stuff gets a bit complicated when you do
> a single transaction involving multiple files. So if you have lots of
> processes writing to the same set of SQLite tables, you'll see pretty
> poor performance. PostgreSQL handles that situation far better, but
> has a lot more overhead, so it's a poor choice for a single simple
> application. MySQL's locking/concurrency system is specifically
> optimized for a model that's common for web applications: a huge
> number of readers and a tiny number of writers (sometimes referred to
> as Data Warehousing, because you basically stuff a warehouse full of
> data and then everyone comes looking for it). For the write-heavy
> model (sometimes called OLTP or On-Line Transaction Processing),
> PostgreSQL will hugely outperform MySQL, thanks to its MVCC model.
> Broad recommendation: Single application, tiny workload, concurrency
> not an issue, simplicity desired? Go SQLite. Big complex job, need
> performance, lots of things reading and writing at once, want
> networked access? Go PGSQL. And don't go MySQL if PG is an option.
> And definitely don't go for a non-free option (MS-SQL, DB2, etc)
> unless you've looked into it really closely and you are absolutely
> thoroughly *sure* that you need that system (which probably means you
> need your app to integrate with someone else's, and that other app
> demands one particular database).
> ChrisA
> --
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/attachments/20140209/66e6c6a9/attachment.html>

More information about the Python-list mailing list