*** 11,16 ****
--- 11,20 ----
in the way it stores tables. Firebird will store indices more compactly,
on the other hand.
+ _: _Robert Simpson found that SQLite database files were 10 times smaller
+ than Firebird database files. See below._
+
+
The SQLite database file is cross-platform. You can freely copy an
SQLite database from one machine to another and it will still work.
Firebird databases, on the other hand, cannot
***************
*** 65,67 ****
--- 69,86 ----
does not. If you run Firebird in client/server mode, it allows
concurrent access with fine-grain locking. But in embedded mode,
only one program to connectc to the database at a time.
+
+ -----
+ Robert Simpson wrote on the mailing list on 2005-10-12:{linebreak}
+ I've found that not to be the case at least
+ in the one very simplistic case I tried:
+
+ Using the following schema:
+
+ CREATE TABLE Foo ([Id] INTEGER NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY)
+
+ Inserting 100,000 items into a sqlite and firebird database, then updating
+ all 100,000 with an UPDATE statement, the final database size was:
+
+ SQLite (3.2.5) : 819,200 bytes
+ Firebird (1.5.2.4731 embedded) : 8,736,768 bytes
Small. Fast. Reliable.
Choose any three.
Choose any three.
|
|