> if I had the option to use PostgreSQL for something I'd never ever get close to choosing SQLite over it.
I'm using both Postgres and SQLite for active projects. Postgres is great for a multi-user blog I run where the DB is hosted, backed up, etc. The same site would run fine and slightly faster with local SQLite (which it used to) but having Postgres lets me use Render.com's built in management features, which are nice.
SQLite works great for anything app-like. I have a script that OCRs certain video game screenshots and saves the OCR data in a searchable database, for example. Postgres would be complete overkill for this and would add nothing but hassle. I don't want to bother with keeping a separate database going for that in my Postgres server. I just want a folder of files, and SQLite works perfectly for that. I could use Postgres but it would offer zero useful benefits and might be a bit slower (even with a local server) due to my sloppy code.
They are just different tools for different tasks, with some overlap.
I'm using both Postgres and SQLite for active projects. Postgres is great for a multi-user blog I run where the DB is hosted, backed up, etc. The same site would run fine and slightly faster with local SQLite (which it used to) but having Postgres lets me use Render.com's built in management features, which are nice.
SQLite works great for anything app-like. I have a script that OCRs certain video game screenshots and saves the OCR data in a searchable database, for example. Postgres would be complete overkill for this and would add nothing but hassle. I don't want to bother with keeping a separate database going for that in my Postgres server. I just want a folder of files, and SQLite works perfectly for that. I could use Postgres but it would offer zero useful benefits and might be a bit slower (even with a local server) due to my sloppy code.
They are just different tools for different tasks, with some overlap.