News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on "SQLite is not designed to replace Oracle. It is designed to replace fopen().". Parent comment

Re:"SQLite is not designed to replace Oracle. It is designed... by jodrellblank on Saturday July 30, 2011 @12:35AM (#2824886)
When you need "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" levels of nontechnical legitimacy?

(I too wonder what technical marvels it can perform which justify the cost).

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:"SQLite is not designed to replace Oracle. It is designed... by karambahh on Saturday July 30, 2011 @03:39AM (#2825185)
When you need multiple spatially distributed active/active write nodes (multiple masters...) you pretty much need Oracle RAC. When confronted with the cost, you end up designing something where writes are pushed to a caching layer, which deals with an active/passive setup, with enough buffer to switch passive to active if something goes wrong.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:"SQLite is not designed to replace Oracle. It is designed... by jacques_chester on Saturday July 30, 2011 @04:56AM (#2825319)
DB2 and Teradata boast comparable degrees of horizontal, multi-site scalability.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:"SQLite is not designed to replace Oracle. It is designed... by karambahh on Saturday July 30, 2011 @10:39AM (#2825849)
And DB2 cost pretty much the same as Oracle... :p
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:"SQLite is not designed to replace Oracle. It is designed... by jacques_chester on Saturday July 30, 2011 @11:59AM (#2826014)
Less, usually, depending on the platform. IBM mostly uses DB2 to sell its fancier hardware.

But occasionally you gotta spend money to make money.

[ Parent | on HN ]