Hacker News Reader

Comment by edraferi | Hacker News Reader

I agree that "serverless" now mainly means "Function as a Service." The goal here is convey that there is no server component of the database, similar to SQLite and unlike PostgreSQL.

What is the correct terminology to highlight this architectural distinction?

View on HN

SQLite is a library. If you call a program to store your data, it's a DB server. Same host or not.

"daemonless" makes the most sense to me, though I doubt that would catch on.

Of course there is no server, since we are talking about local. I agree with others that the title is misleading. I looked at the project for a while to realize that it's just a local command line interface to storing objects in sqlite.

While I am sure there are use cases for this, it is not correct to say this is "serverless".

By that standard you can call literally ANYTHING "serverless".

For starters, this coffee I'm drinking right now is "serverless". It does its job well, completely without a server!

What's wrong with 'local'? Serverless is a terrible word to describe this.

I always thought they were "embedded" databases.

"embeddable datastore" is the right term

your headline is good except the term "serverless". please drop it. The term means much more than "not hosting it on a server". As somebody pointed out, "embedded datastore" may be a better term.

I agree the term is confusing now that "serverless" has a cloud-related definition, but in the database world, it is traditionally one of the terms used as an antonym to "client/server database". See, for example: https://sqlite.org/serverless.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com