Do you have any benchmarks that back up MySQL being faster than SQLite? Ever set I've seen has SQLite being slightly faster on most operations, which makes a lot more sense considering how much less work it does.
This is my biggest problem with these discussions, before we talk about "performance" we need to understand how to quantify performance. Is it read? write? update? complex extraction? joins? concurrency? What combination?
To say SQLite is "fast" is meaningless unless you define the criteria by which you come to this conclusion.
I'm curious--are you actually advocating a full RDBMS for just about every data storage problem?
Not at all, but the above "conventional wisdom" list is bogus. It has nothing to do with how you choose a data storage technology. In the spirit of Billy Madison, we are all stupider for having read it.
1. If you want a full RDBMS, use Oracle, or PostgreSQL, or a similar ACID + SQL92 compliant DB. 2. If you don't really care, use MySQL. 3. If you want ridiculous speed, and actively hate your data, use SQLite. 4. If you have one file, or maybe two, use BerkeleyDB or similar. 5. Flat files are fine for config.
This is a perfect example of the thinking of those who know nothing about databases. It is nonsensical conventional wisdom created by ignorance.
"If you don't really care, use MySQL."
How do you know before hand if you care or not? The floor is littered with projects that started as "simple" an grew. MySQL is a terrible database and almost any full RDBMS is better.
"If you want ridiculous speed, and actively hate your data, use SQLite."
What is "ridiculous speed?" On reads? Writes? Concurrency? Joins? Complex data selection? A full RDBMS will have HUGE speed advantages over MySQL and SQLite most every case.
"If you have one file, or maybe two, use BerkeleyDB or similar.'
What does BerkeleyDB even bring to this discussion?
I'll keep it short: To think that science and religion are fundamentally incompatible is to misunderstand religion.
They are not as a concept "incompatible," but "faith" that something is "true" without any credible evidence is.
There may be pink unicorns that live in the forest, but until credible evidence as to their existence is presented, I will not accept edicts, laws, or social rules supposedly dictated by them.
For something to be a fact, you have to believe it to be so, you have to believe in the evidence.
This is one of those obfuscation arguments that center on the fact that a word has multiple meanings with subtle differences.
Religious "belief" requires faith. Science doesn't "believe," it accepts as true evidence that it has verified. Unfortunately, in the english language, we would use the phrase "I believe this to be true," not as a proclamation of faith that it is so, but that we are satisfied with the evidence thus far presented. If more evidence is forthcoming that nullifies our previous evaluation of the facts, then we would no longer be satisfied with the evidence.
May scientists, me included, use science as a way of life. The strict definition of the word science may be just a method, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the broader, more encompassing definition. Science is many things.
Then you misunderstand science. It is not a way of life. It is a method by which we come to the truth about facts, but it has nothing to do with the human condition.
Because you think that all religious people take everything literally, and that you think you know enough about every religion to say that such a thing is a problem to begin with.
The assertions in this paragraph are false. I think religious people are fundamentally very very silly. They believe in fantastic things which can't possibly be true with no evidence at all.
What proof would it take for you to accept that a man lived several thousand years ago and did a bunch of improbable things and then died in his early 30's?
contemporary and historical records that document it, 1st person accounts, etc. None of which, by the way, exist for the myth of Je'sus. In fact, it is likely that the character is a composite of people during a populist/rebellious movement of the time.
It is interesting that no account appears in the historical record of je'sus until about one hundred years after his supposed death.
It is also interesting that the christian church did not actually profess "divinity" of the je'sus character until 3 or 4 hundred years after his death.
Islam isn't much better either. Mohamed was supposed to have written the quran, but no evidence that he actually was able to write exists. In fact a "written" quran doesn't appear in history until a few hundred years after his death.
It is much more likely that islam and christianity are nothing more than myths like the easer bunny or santa clause. if this offends you, it isn't me, its the facts, and you are offended by the truth. Sorry.
There are bad scientists out there, should we stop respecting all of science?
This is an interesting point and I'm glad I get to address it.
The problem with the "evil" practitioners of religion isn't that they are subverting the teachings of their religion, quite the contrary, the problem is that they are taking their teachings literally. This means the religion is culpable in their acts. It also means that less extreme practitioners contribute by creating an environment that fosters the extremists among them.
Science isn't a belief system and it does not have a set moral teachings, so it really isn't the same thing as religion. so a "bad" scientists is merely poor at his profession.
You honestly believe that religious people are all abusing their children?
I think a religious environment is potentially abusive, and instilling superstitious beliefs as truth in children is not a good thing.
You think that concept is 'reasonable'? It's staggering that you got modded up.
What about "christian scientists" that deny critical care to their children? What about muslims who teach terrorism. What about "abstenence only" education?
I'm not saying that fundamentalists weren't responsible for the twin towers. I'm saying that painting them as representatives for all religion is offensive. But that is his intent after all...
It is the seeming rational moderate "enablers" that give comfort to the extremists. Religion is nonsense. If you can believe absurdities you can perpetrate atrocities.
Just learn to respect people as people and don't talk shit about them like claiming their belief system is "neurosis." That's akin to them calling you a heathen.
I take no offense to the term heathen, although it has more or less been confused with pagan.
ok, I'll say it, people who BELIEVE in god, are ridiculous and silly and in their folly embolden the worst of their creed to perpetrate intolerable violence.
It wouldn't be so bad if the religious kept it to themselves, but the middle eastern religions seem bent on destroying and subjugating those with whom they have theological differences, no matter how minor.
If there "may or may not be", doesn't that actually mean that you are agnostic (that you do not know) rather than being atheist (not believing that there is a god)?
Well, the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" have had some revision in the last decade, back in my day, an agnostic was one who was basically accepting of the generalities of religion but questioned the various aspects of it.
Oh what a terrible burden that must be for you. I'm so sorry that the theists have imposed this horrible punishment on you for nothing more than exhibiting "common sense"
Make no mistake, EVERYONE in civilized society pays the price for religion. The 9/11/2001 hijackers were fundamentalists in their religion. How about the idiots who strap bombs to themselves. Or law makers who create laws on their beliefs or presidents to perform their jobs listening to a "higher father."
People hold all sorts of absurd beliefs. A fairly large majority of Americans believe it's a good idea to take a significant portion of workers' compensation and give it the wealthiest generation in the history of the world. *sigh* To each their own.
yes, funny that, the president that believed this was a "born again christian."
You're essentially claiming that you (and people like you) are empowered to decide which absurd beliefs are delusional and which ones aren't
No not at all. *Any* belief that is not supported by reasonable evidence is absurd.
I love that the atheist proposes that lack of evidence of God is proof of his non-existence.
Lack of evidence of the existence of god is a lack of reason to even be bothered with it. The only reason I even have an opinion about the fantastic nonsense that calls itself religion are the people who fly planes into buildings, strap explosives to themselves, and create laws in government that directly affect me.
When you can provide *any* credible evidence that god exists, then we'll listen. Until then it does not matter because if there is no proof, then it has no effect on the world.
These are the same thing as far as I can see. Atheism is not a lack of belief, it's just a belief in a lack.
I don't "BELIEVE" there is no god, I don't believe there is a god. No one has proved that any such thing exists or is even likely to exist. If there is ever proof, it won't change any of beliefs.
To me, believing that there is no god is like believing there is no easter bunny. There is no proof or rational argument that supports the notion of an easter bunny in the first place, so actively believing that there is no easter bunny is silly.
will you insert yourself into the conversation and try to convince me that I'm wrong?
I don't need to convince you. You are wrong.
Why shouldn't you be tolerant of the belief in Zeus.If someone wants to believe in Zeus, that's their business, and I don't see that as a reason to treat them differently from anyone else.
One need not look past 9/11/2001 to see the dangers of entertaing those who believe without fact and are willing to die without reason. When does a "harmless" nonsense like a belief in god, become a dangerous sickness in society?
The problem is that atheism is not in fact the position of someone who is completely rational or scientifically motivated.
It is impossible to ever be sure of someone's motivation or rationality, but atheism at its core is a rational and intellectually justifiable position.
The rational position is "You haven't proven the existence of God. God may exist in the same way extraterrestrials may exist, but there's absolutely no evidence for it right now."
You are being too easy on religion.
The difference here is that if incontrovertible evidence for God suddenly turned up, an atheist would reject that evidence,
Then they are not being intellectually honest.
whereas a rational user of the scientific method would look for more ways to test the hypothesis.
Leaving the door open to god is a scientifically rational position, however, the opening should be equivalent to the probability of the hypothesis. In my eyes, any particular "god" is as likely as the easter bunny. So, yea, if you have proof, i'll listen, but for all intent and purposes I accept the conclusion that there is no god. I'm happy with that.
He's said that people who teach their kids religion are child abusers.
From a logical perspective, that is not unreasonable or unheard of. We remove children from "christian scientists" when they refuse critical care.
He ends one of his lectures by saying how religious fundamentalists crashed into the twin towers, and therefore it's time to stop being so respectful of religion.
Religious fundamentalists *DID* crash into the twin towers.
Those are pretty offensive comments to me...
Truth is often offensive to those who refuse to accept it.
faced with someone who can't take the difference seriously, whether that person's beliefs are christian, muslim, atheist or whatever.
What "theists" do not get is that atheism is not a belief, it is a glorious lack of belief.
I do not believe that there is a god. This is quite different than believing in a different god or believing there is no god.
There may or may not be a god, but lacking any proof or validating logical argument, it doesn't matter and makes no difference and for all practical purposes, it is safe to operate on the assumption that there is no god until proof is provided.
I think a good summary of my feelings is the old forum-ettiquette of "don't attack the poster, attack his point of view", Dawkins sometimes steps over that line.
I have watched a number of debates involving Dawkins, and I have to disagree. He is very polite. They only time in which he directly addresses the opponent in the debate is when the discussion involves personal experiences.
If I say there IS a god and I will not entertain any atheist nonsense, people are irrational. They will say I am intolerant. Your point?
If you can prove that in which you believe exists, I'll look at the evidence and if it is credible I will accept it. If, however, you offer no evidence or if you do it is not credible, then I won't.
My position of "not believing" sits with common sense. I will not believe in the easter bunny, santa claus, or other myth without proof and you probably wouldn't either.
Exactly what special treatment do theists expect?
That we silently accept the absurd beliefs as something other than delusions.
I find a lot of the time he can be callously disrespectful and religiously atheist.
Having seen him many times, the only offense he may have committed is *not* entertaining the rediculous notion that a god exists without any proof.
It is very hard for people to accept atheists simply because we DON'T believe. That is not being religious at all.
I don't have to be tolerant of the belief in Zeus. I can see flat out, it is bunk. There is no god Zeus, and no one will be offended.
If I say, there is no god and I will not entertain any such nonsense, people are irrational. They will say I am intolerant. I submet it is they who are intolerant as they don't have any credible evidence to even support their nonsense. I'm just calling it as I see it, and they are expecting special treatment for their own neurosis.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have any benchmarks that back up MySQL being faster than SQLite? Ever set I've seen has SQLite being slightly faster on most operations, which makes a lot more sense considering how much less work it does.
This is my biggest problem with these discussions, before we talk about "performance" we need to understand how to quantify performance. Is it read? write? update? complex extraction? joins? concurrency? What combination?
To say SQLite is "fast" is meaningless unless you define the criteria by which you come to this conclusion.
I'm curious--are you actually advocating a full RDBMS for just about every data storage problem?
Not at all, but the above "conventional wisdom" list is bogus. It has nothing to do with how you choose a data storage technology. In the spirit of Billy Madison, we are all stupider for having read it.
1. If you want a full RDBMS, use Oracle, or PostgreSQL, or a similar ACID + SQL92 compliant DB.
2. If you don't really care, use MySQL.
3. If you want ridiculous speed, and actively hate your data, use SQLite.
4. If you have one file, or maybe two, use BerkeleyDB or similar.
5. Flat files are fine for config.
This is a perfect example of the thinking of those who know nothing about databases. It is nonsensical conventional wisdom created by ignorance.
"If you don't really care, use MySQL."
How do you know before hand if you care or not? The floor is littered with projects that started as "simple" an grew. MySQL is a terrible database and almost any full RDBMS is better.
"If you want ridiculous speed, and actively hate your data, use SQLite."
What is "ridiculous speed?" On reads? Writes? Concurrency? Joins? Complex data selection? A full RDBMS will have HUGE speed advantages over MySQL and SQLite most every case.
"If you have one file, or maybe two, use BerkeleyDB or similar.'
What does BerkeleyDB even bring to this discussion?
"Flat files are fine for config."
What if you want to share config?
I'll keep it short: To think that science and religion are fundamentally incompatible is to misunderstand religion.
They are not as a concept "incompatible," but "faith" that something is "true" without any credible evidence is.
There may be pink unicorns that live in the forest, but until credible evidence as to their existence is presented, I will not accept edicts, laws, or social rules supposedly dictated by them.
For something to be a fact, you have to believe it to be so, you have to believe in the evidence.
This is one of those obfuscation arguments that center on the fact that a word has multiple meanings with subtle differences.
Religious "belief" requires faith.
Science doesn't "believe," it accepts as true evidence that it has verified. Unfortunately, in the english language, we would use the phrase "I believe this to be true," not as a proclamation of faith that it is so, but that we are satisfied with the evidence thus far presented. If more evidence is forthcoming that nullifies our previous evaluation of the facts, then we would no longer be satisfied with the evidence.
May scientists, me included, use science as a way of life. The strict definition of the word science may be just a method, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the broader, more encompassing definition. Science is many things.
Then you misunderstand science. It is not a way of life. It is a method by which we come to the truth about facts, but it has nothing to do with the human condition.
Because you think that all religious people take everything literally, and that you think you know enough about every religion to say that such a thing is a problem to begin with.
The assertions in this paragraph are false. I think religious people are fundamentally very very silly. They believe in fantastic things which can't possibly be true with no evidence at all.
What proof would it take for you to accept that a man lived several thousand years ago and did a bunch of improbable things and then died in his early 30's?
contemporary and historical records that document it, 1st person accounts, etc. None of which, by the way, exist for the myth of Je'sus. In fact, it is likely that the character is a composite of people during a populist/rebellious movement of the time.
It is interesting that no account appears in the historical record of je'sus until about one hundred years after his supposed death.
It is also interesting that the christian church did not actually profess "divinity" of the je'sus character until 3 or 4 hundred years after his death.
Islam isn't much better either. Mohamed was supposed to have written the quran, but no evidence that he actually was able to write exists. In fact a "written" quran doesn't appear in history until a few hundred years after his death.
It is much more likely that islam and christianity are nothing more than myths like the easer bunny or santa clause. if this offends you, it isn't me, its the facts, and you are offended by the truth. Sorry.
Science might not be a belief system,
Correction: Science can best be described as an anti-belief system which requires reason and fact.
When I said science, I meant science as a profession, an area interest, a way of life, etc.
Science is *not* a "way of life," it is nothing more than a methodology for inquiry.
As for the rest of your point on religion, it still seems very naive to me.
I'm not aware of any definition of "naive" that fits my position, please explain how I am "naive."
There are bad scientists out there, should we stop respecting all of science?
This is an interesting point and I'm glad I get to address it.
The problem with the "evil" practitioners of religion isn't that they are subverting the teachings of their religion, quite the contrary, the problem is that they are taking their teachings literally. This means the religion is culpable in their acts. It also means that less extreme practitioners contribute by creating an environment that fosters the extremists among them.
Science isn't a belief system and it does not have a set moral teachings, so it really isn't the same thing as religion. so a "bad" scientists is merely poor at his profession.
He is saying that teaching a religious doctrine is child abuse. That is just not reasonable.
You may not think it is reasonable, but we have pulled children out of homes before.
Saying that some religious teachings or philosophies are bad is no different than saying that some non religious philosophies are bad
True.
I think a non religious environment can be potentially abusive too. So what?
OK, why? At least Dawkins has a rational.
You honestly believe that religious people are all abusing their children?
I think a religious environment is potentially abusive, and instilling superstitious beliefs as truth in children is not a good thing.
You think that concept is 'reasonable'? It's staggering that you got modded up.
What about "christian scientists" that deny critical care to their children? What about muslims who teach terrorism. What about "abstenence only" education?
I'm not saying that fundamentalists weren't responsible for the twin towers. I'm saying that painting them as representatives for all religion is offensive. But that is his intent after all...
It is the seeming rational moderate "enablers" that give comfort to the extremists. Religion is nonsense. If you can believe absurdities you can perpetrate atrocities.
Atheism is a belief because you don't know the answer and you have no way of getting the answer, but you assert it anyway.
This is a primary example of the twisted logic required to maintain the delusion of religion.
Just learn to respect people as people and don't talk shit about them like claiming their belief system is "neurosis." That's akin to them calling you a heathen.
I take no offense to the term heathen, although it has more or less been confused with pagan.
ok, I'll say it, people who BELIEVE in god, are ridiculous and silly and in their folly embolden the worst of their creed to perpetrate intolerable violence.
It wouldn't be so bad if the religious kept it to themselves, but the middle eastern religions seem bent on destroying and subjugating those with whom they have theological differences, no matter how minor.
If there "may or may not be", doesn't that actually mean that you are agnostic (that you do not know) rather than being atheist (not believing that there is a god)?
Well, the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" have had some revision in the last decade, back in my day, an agnostic was one who was basically accepting of the generalities of religion but questioned the various aspects of it.
An atheist was one who does not believe in god.
Oh what a terrible burden that must be for you. I'm so sorry that the theists have imposed this horrible punishment on you for nothing more than exhibiting "common sense"
Make no mistake, EVERYONE in civilized society pays the price for religion. The 9/11/2001 hijackers were fundamentalists in their religion. How about the idiots who strap bombs to themselves. Or law makers who create laws on their beliefs or presidents to perform their jobs listening to a "higher father."
People hold all sorts of absurd beliefs. A fairly large majority of Americans believe it's a good idea to take a significant portion of workers' compensation and give it the wealthiest generation in the history of the world. *sigh* To each their own.
yes, funny that, the president that believed this was a "born again christian."
You're essentially claiming that you (and people like you) are empowered to decide which absurd beliefs are delusional and which ones aren't
No not at all. *Any* belief that is not supported by reasonable evidence is absurd.
How'd you earn that right?
*I* didn't, society has adopted this benchmark.
I love that the atheist proposes that lack of evidence of God is proof of his non-existence.
Lack of evidence of the existence of god is a lack of reason to even be bothered with it. The only reason I even have an opinion about the fantastic nonsense that calls itself religion are the people who fly planes into buildings, strap explosives to themselves, and create laws in government that directly affect me.
When you can provide *any* credible evidence that god exists, then we'll listen. Until then it does not matter because if there is no proof, then it has no effect on the world.
These are the same thing as far as I can see. Atheism is not a lack of belief, it's just a belief in a lack.
I don't "BELIEVE" there is no god, I don't believe there is a god. No one has proved that any such thing exists or is even likely to exist. If there is ever proof, it won't change any of beliefs.
To me, believing that there is no god is like believing there is no easter bunny. There is no proof or rational argument that supports the notion of an easter bunny in the first place, so actively believing that there is no easter bunny is silly.
will you insert yourself into the conversation and try to convince me that I'm wrong?
I don't need to convince you. You are wrong.
Why shouldn't you be tolerant of the belief in Zeus.If someone wants to believe in Zeus, that's their business, and I don't see that as a reason to treat them differently from anyone else.
One need not look past 9/11/2001 to see the dangers of entertaing those who believe without fact and are willing to die without reason. When does a "harmless" nonsense like a belief in god, become a dangerous sickness in society?
The problem is that atheism is not in fact the position of someone who is completely rational or scientifically motivated.
It is impossible to ever be sure of someone's motivation or rationality, but atheism at its core is a rational and intellectually justifiable position.
The rational position is "You haven't proven the existence of God. God may exist in the same way extraterrestrials may exist, but there's absolutely no evidence for it right now."
You are being too easy on religion.
The difference here is that if incontrovertible evidence for God suddenly turned up, an atheist would reject that evidence,
Then they are not being intellectually honest.
whereas a rational user of the scientific method would look for more ways to test the hypothesis.
Leaving the door open to god is a scientifically rational position, however, the opening should be equivalent to the probability of the hypothesis. In my eyes, any particular "god" is as likely as the easter bunny. So, yea, if you have proof, i'll listen, but for all intent and purposes I accept the conclusion that there is no god. I'm happy with that.
He does not merely not believe in a God. He BELIEVES there is no God.
Direct citation required.
he point is that Dawkins certainly advances a religious belief - one which cannot in any way be proven one way or another.
He certainly does not. Also, one need no disprove religion as it lacks any credible proof in the first place.
Merely not holding an opinion on the subject of God is not a belief - that is an attitude and not an intellectual position.
Wrong. I (and most atheists) hold the same position about god that most people hold for other gods and myths.
He's said that people who teach their kids religion are child abusers.
From a logical perspective, that is not unreasonable or unheard of. We remove children from "christian scientists" when they refuse critical care.
He ends one of his lectures by saying how religious fundamentalists crashed into the twin towers, and therefore it's time to stop being so respectful of religion.
Religious fundamentalists *DID* crash into the twin towers.
Those are pretty offensive comments to me...
Truth is often offensive to those who refuse to accept it.
I think you mean "agnostic." Theists believe in God, atheists believe there is no God, and agnostics reserve judgment, IIRC.
Any connection with the term "atheist" and "belief" is incorrect, however, there are lots of people who like to muddy the waters for benefit.
faced with someone who can't take the difference seriously, whether that person's beliefs are christian, muslim, atheist or whatever.
What "theists" do not get is that atheism is not a belief, it is a glorious lack of belief.
I do not believe that there is a god. This is quite different than believing in a different god or believing there is no god.
There may or may not be a god, but lacking any proof or validating logical argument, it doesn't matter and makes no difference and for all practical purposes, it is safe to operate on the assumption that there is no god until proof is provided.
I think a good summary of my feelings is the old forum-ettiquette of "don't attack the poster, attack his point of view", Dawkins sometimes steps over that line.
I have watched a number of debates involving Dawkins, and I have to disagree. He is very polite. They only time in which he directly addresses the opponent in the debate is when the discussion involves personal experiences.
If I say there IS a god and I will not entertain any atheist nonsense, people are irrational. They will say I am intolerant. Your point?
If you can prove that in which you believe exists, I'll look at the evidence and if it is credible I will accept it. If, however, you offer no evidence or if you do it is not credible, then I won't.
My position of "not believing" sits with common sense. I will not believe in the easter bunny, santa claus, or other myth without proof and you probably wouldn't either.
Exactly what special treatment do theists expect?
That we silently accept the absurd beliefs as something other than delusions.
I find a lot of the time he can be callously disrespectful and religiously atheist.
Having seen him many times, the only offense he may have committed is *not* entertaining the rediculous notion that a god exists without any proof.
It is very hard for people to accept atheists simply because we DON'T believe. That is not being religious at all.
I don't have to be tolerant of the belief in Zeus. I can see flat out, it is bunk. There is no god Zeus, and no one will be offended.
If I say, there is no god and I will not entertain any such nonsense, people are irrational. They will say I am intolerant. I submet it is they who are intolerant as they don't have any credible evidence to even support their nonsense. I'm just calling it as I see it, and they are expecting special treatment for their own neurosis.