Comment by WesolyKubeczek
Comment by WesolyKubeczek 8 hours ago
> For me: Try queries without the hassle of setting up a database.
sqlite3 some-file.db
Comment by WesolyKubeczek 8 hours ago
> For me: Try queries without the hassle of setting up a database.
sqlite3 some-file.db
When you upload a database to the site, it is stored in your browser's memory or uses OpFS — a local storage within your browser.
You can share a link to grant access to your database, with the connection handled via P2P through WebRTC.
If the database is loaded from an external source (as shown in the examples), using the "Share Script" feature automatically attaches a link to the database. The link allows both the database and the script to be accessed and loaded.
> This method is not available on all devices and does not support sharing or collaboration.
The parent cites "hassle of creating the database" and does not mention sharing or collaborating. I showed that it doesn't get more hassle-free than this and doesn't even require connectivity (which might be a problem "on some devices" or "in some locations").
> doesn't even require connectivity (which might be a problem "on some devices" or "in some locations").
You are just trying to prove a point instead of understanding it.
> "hassle of creating the database" and does not mention sharing or collaborating.
He might just have summarized everything as "hassle of creating the database".
Not everything on internet is supposed to be a debate with highly and carefully developped wording.
> You are just trying to prove a point instead of understanding it.
> He might just have summarized everything as "hassle of creating the database".
You are also making an assumption, though. That person might not have known "sqlite3 mydb.db" is all you need to create a sqlite database.
It was just one item in a list and they used "etc." which prob refers to all the other obvious upsides, like why you would use pgadmin/postico to write postgres queries instead of psql cli.
So to double down on that one detail as if it were a load bearing remark comes off as trying to win a point.
If `sqlite3 test.db` launched a rich UI with tabs and such, then maybe they'd be onto something, but it does not.
Implicit assumptions: You know what a CLI is, you have one on your system, and how to install the sqlite3 binary somehow.
When I just started out with linux I was so frustrated with people just listing reams of commands, or files I needed to edit without stating I needed to look in /etc
I had the same reaction, why not just use the command line interface?
From there, I guess the value this adds is:
1. There is a UI, i.e. it has some autocomplete of sql syntax and it shows tables in a ... tabular format.
2. As others have mentioned, there are sharing features. Yes you could share a .db file, but with this you can also send a link viewable in a browser, with specific queries, etc.
#1 reminds me of MS Access from back in the day. Those were sql dbs underneath, but they had some interfaces to show you how to build queries. It wasn't a bad way to dip your toes into the basics of sql.
sqlite3 :memory:
As a developer, on your development machine, if you use sqlite even infrequently, then no.
Anyone else, probably, but then why would you use this tool if you have no need for sqlite?
This method is not available on all devices and does not support sharing or collaboration.
The website, however, works on any platform and allows working together in a single shared database.