>most SQL will carry over between SQLite and Postgres and MySQL, especially if you add ORMs in the mix
I think this goes underappreciated, or rather the opposite is overstated.
Sure there are some edge cases that don't work the same, but most apps won't hit those.
My _biggest_ gripe with SQLite so far is the lack of column reordering like other DBs. And my simplistic understanding is that the others do it exactly the same way as you'd do it manually with SQLite - table gets _replaced_ with an identical table with the data correctly ordered and the data is shoved into the new table.
> Sure there are some edge cases that don't work the same, but most apps won't hit those.
That really depends on your modelling style. If you like things like types, SQL-side processing (eg using functions), or covering indexes, then you’ll hit issues every five minutes in sqlite.
SQLite really wants the logic (including consistency logic) in the application, just compare the list of aggregate functions in postgres versus sqlite, or consider that you have to enable FKs on a per-connection basis.
Which I guess is why ORMs help a lot: they are generally based on application-side logic and LCD database.
I'm pretty sure SQLite has covering indexes. And the relatively new strict mode should enforce at least basic types (though if you want to enforce your own rules for things like dates you're still on your own).
I checked to be sure I had not missed it, and didn’t find anything. You have expressions and conditions, but no covering. Obviously you can kinda emulate it by adding the columns you want to cover to the key, but…
> though if you want to enforce your own rules for things like dates you're still on your own
That’s what I was talking about, having richer types, and the ability to create more (especially domains).
Strict tables provides table stakes of actually enforcing the all-of-5-types sqlite has built-in. Afaik a strict mode is something that’s still being discussed if it ever becomes reality.
Ya if my reading is correct this is the poor man's covering index: if all the requested data is in the index key the query will not hit the table, so you can add additional fields at the end of the key to get index-only scans (at a cost, also some flexibility cost e.g. doesn't work with unique indexes).
I guess it's less of an issue in sqlite than in databases with richer datatypes in the sense that all datatypes are ordered and thus indexable.
With a "proper" covering index (an INCLUDE clause in SQL Server or Postgres for example) you add data to the index value. This means it can be retrieved just by looking into the index but
- it's not constrained (e.g. to be orderable)
- it does not affect the behaviour of the index, so you can have covering data in a UNIQUE index, or in a PK constraint (although for the latter one might argue a clustered index is superior)
- it only takes space in leaf nodes, not interior nodes, so you can have better occupancy of interior node pages, less pages to traverse during lookup, and they have better cache residency
- and finally the intent is clearer, when you put everything in the key it does not tell the reader what's what and why it there, and thus makes it harder to evaluate changes
It’s a workaround, but it bloats the interior pages of the index with the covering data, which increases the size of the index and makes lookup less efficient (as they have to traverse more interior pages, and since there are more pages those are less likely to remain in cache).
I use SQLite in my personal projects, not professionally. I was wondering if you could elaborate on what you mean by 'consistency logic' in the context of SQLite.
One reason to reorder columns with SQLite is that if a column is usually null or has the default value, SQLite will not store the column at all if it is at the end of the row. It only saves a couple of bytes per column, but it is a reason to get these columns at the end.
"Missing values at the end of the record are filled in using the default value for the corresponding columns defined in the table schema."
If you have a table with 5 columns and you only insert the first 3 columns (based on create table column order) because the last 2 values are null or default, SQLite will only insert 3 type bytes in the header. However, if the first column (in create table order) is the one you omit, SQLite has to include its type byte, even if the value is null.
I think the bigger issue for many is that tooling, infra(provider), in-house knowledge/skill/experience as well as optimizations may differ quite a lot.
Of course, this will differ a lot between projects.
I think this goes underappreciated, or rather the opposite is overstated.
Sure there are some edge cases that don't work the same, but most apps won't hit those.
My _biggest_ gripe with SQLite so far is the lack of column reordering like other DBs. And my simplistic understanding is that the others do it exactly the same way as you'd do it manually with SQLite - table gets _replaced_ with an identical table with the data correctly ordered and the data is shoved into the new table.