LumoSQL is not a fork of SQLite. LumoSQL integrates several bodies of code including SQLite into a new database. The idea of building on SQLite isn't new. The reach and breadth of the SQLite code is astonishing and far more than the LumoSQL project realised at the beginning. Before LumoSQL nobody has tried to document this as one whole.
The Internet runs on data stored in rows, ie Relational Databases (RDBMS). There are many exceptions and alternatives but RDBMS are where the deciding data is stored including:
- in routers that direct internet traffic
- in mobile phones that enable the user to navigate the internet
- business applications or those that deal with reconciling important numbers
- in millions of everyday web applications, from Wikipedia to ticket booking systems
The most widely-used relational database is almost certainly SQLite, and nearly all SQLite usage is in embedded devices, frequently with internet access as the Internet of Things. The question "How widely-used is SQLite?" is addressed in specific section below.
In addition there are SQLite-derived projects that address traditional online database use cases in a similar way only in a tiny fraction (4%-10%) of size of code. SQLite sticks to its strict original project definition. LumoSQL seeks to be still rigorous and also inclusive and accepting of the many new SQLite-based features fragmented across the web.
The databases to compare LumoSQL against are those which together are the most-used on the internet today:
- Oracle MySQL - open source, with closed source licensing available, ubiquitous on the internet
- MariaDB - a mostly-compatible fork of MySQL, seemingly taking over from MySQL on the internet
- Postgresql - open source, highly compliant with SQL standards,
- Oracle's traditional RDBMs - the closed source database that makes its owners the most money
- Microsoft SQL Server - ubiquitous in business applications, less common on the internet
- SQLite - source code freely available, highly compliant with most SQL standards
All of these are online databases, while SQLite is embedded - more on that below.
This section pulls out distinctive features of the sqlite.org project that matter to LumoSQL. Some are negative features to which LumoSQL wants to respond by way of an improvement or extension, but others are more like a spring that gives LumoSQL a great start in new use cases. Some of these points are mentioned by D Richard Hipp in his 2016 Changelog Podcast Interview.
sqlite.org is a responsive and responsible upstream, for issues they feel are in scope. For example, see section 4.1.4 in https://www.sqlite.org/testing.html where Manuel Rigger is credited for his work in raising many dozens of bugs, which as can be seen at https://www.sqlite.org/src/timeline?y=t&u=mrigger&n=all have been addressed promptly. LumoSQL should not fork SQLite, partly because the developers are doing a very good job at maintaining the things they care about, and partly because SQLite has a high profile and attracts technical review.
Sqlite.org is entirely focussed on its existing scope and traditional user needs and SQLite imposes strict limits for example “Think of SQLite not as a replacement for Oracle but as a replacement for fopen()” which eliminates many of the possibilities LumoSQL is now exploring that go beyond any version of fopen(). Many things that SQLite can used for are declared out of scope by the SQLite project including those that are high concurrency, write-intensive, or networked. LumoSQL feels there is a tension between this scope for SQLite and the 5G IoT world very many applications are all three, and many SQLite deployments are tending towards disregarding the warnings from the SQLite project.
Sqlite has a very strict and reliable view on maintaining backwards compatibility both binary and API (except when it comes to encryption, see further down.) The Sqlite foundation aims to keep SQLite3 interfaces and formats stable until the year 2050, according to Richard Hipp in the podcast interview, as once requested by an airframe construction company (Airbus). Whatever happens in years to come SQLite has definitely delivered on this to date. This means that there are many things SQLite cannot do which LumoSQL can, and it also means that LumoSQL needs to suppor strict compatibility with SQLite3 interfaces and formats at least as an option if not the default.
Sqlite.org not entirely an open project. No code is accepted from contributors external to the company HWACI, which is owned by D Richard Hipp, the original author and lead of SQLite. From the SQLite copyright page:
In order to keep SQLite completely free and unencumbered by copyright, the project does not accept patches. If you would like to make a suggested change, and include a patch as a proof-of-concept, that would be great. However please do not be offended if we rewrite your patch from scratch.
That fact is not hidden in any way, and there have been many years of successful SQLite use on this basis. It is definitely not acceptable under the Next Generation Internet initiative nor (quite possibly) under draft and current EU laws or at least recommendations, as discussed elsewhere in SQLite documentation. On the other hand, there is a contribution policy . LumoSQL is a fully open project, and since it started in 2019 not 1999, LumoSQL does not have to navigate historical decisions in the way SQLite does.
The SQLite Long Term Support page states:
“In addition to supporting SQLite through the year 2050, the developers also promise to keep the SQLite C-language API and on-disk format fully backwards compatible. This means that applications written to use SQLite today should be able to link against and use future versions of SQLite released decades in the future.”
As well as the success of this policy and its obvious advantages, there are some serious problems with it too:
this kind of backwards-compatibility was one of the problems that led to Microsoft Windows stagnation for years, see The Case Against Backwards Compatibility. The problem isn't clear-cut, as shown by Why is ABI Stability Important? and Greg Kroah-Hartman's paper Stable API Nonsense, noting that the Linux distribution companies such as Red Hat charge money to maintain a time-limited stable API. LumoSQL has the luxury of choosing what extensions to stable formats and APIs to introduce, and how.
Since SQLite crypto implementation details are secret, any encrypted database created by the official closed-source SQLite is almost certainly incompatible with any other encryption project by third parties, despite file format compatibility being a major feature of SQLite. Yet with encryption being a requirement for many applications, this means there is no guarantee of SQLite file format compatibility.
this rigid rule becomes difficult when it comes to a long-term storage format discussions. See below for discussion of how the SQLite binary format has almost zero internal integrity checking. LumoSQL aims to add options to address this problem.
Sqlite is less open source than it appears. The existence of so many SQLite spin-offs is evidence that SQLite code is highly available. However there are several aspects of SQLite that mean it cannot be considered open source, in ways that are increasingly important in the 21st century:
Public domain is not is not recognised in some countries such as Germany and Australia, which means that legal certainty is not possible for users in these countries who need it or want it. Public Domain is not a valid grant of right, which is why it is not one of the Open Source Initiative licenses nor does it appear on the SPDX License List.
sqlite.org charge USD6000 for “perpetual right-to-use for the SQLite source code", and implies that this right-to-use grants legal benefits. This is an additional reason why the SQLite public domain licensing approach cannot be open source, because you have to pay money in order to be sure where you stand. Paying money for open source is encouraged throughout the open source movement, however if that casts doubt on the validity of the open source license then it cannot be open source in the first place.
As sqlite.org states, the most important test harness is only available commercially. This is perfectly legal, but is definitely not the way open source projects generally behave.
The only supported encryption code is closed source, and even the mailing list for discussing this is not public. This is not expected behaviour for an open source project.
This really matters, because in an analogous move, MariaDB now publish some of their cryptographic and network scaling code under their Business Source License which requires "Power Users" to pay. These pressures are not compatible with modern open source and LumoSQL wants to provide an alternative.
SQLite Code has Many Independent Downstreams Multiple front ends, backends and network replication, clustering and encryption solutions exist today. This is all code that appears to be working, or at least it has not obviously decayed even if it might not work as advertised, and some it is very actively developed and supported. Much of this code has been inspected to a first level by LumoSQL, some of it has been built and run. Just because the foregoing can be made to work in a demonstration does not mean that it is suitable for production, nor that it should be part of LumoSQL design. But it speaks of a very strong demand for more features, and a rich pool of experimentation to learn from. This is covered in more detail in the next section.
Sqlite file format does not have technical or organisational longevity built-in Sqlite.org commit to supporting the on-disk file format until 2050, without evidence of an enduring legal body. Similarly, claims are made for the reliability of the on-disk format even though there are virtually no intergity measures built in. As can be seen from the published specification the use of checksums is limited to pages in the writeback journal, and WAL records, and one 32-bit integer for when the official closed source encryption is used. Therefore file format provides no general means of validating the data it contains. It would be possible to extend the file format in a backwards-compatible manner to include such checks, but that does not appear to have been discussed or suggested. This does not provide modern standards of reliable at-rest storage, transport and archiving, and it does not meet minimum privacy standards including those mandated by law in many countries, especially the EU. sqlite.org is not unique in this, it is only fair to say that other SQL databases implement this feature awkwardly or not at all, and that it is particularly obvious in the case of SQLite because it an embedded local on-disk database library. SQLite could be the first database to have a modern reliable on-disk format, and it would not be difficult to make it so except for promises not to break bit-for-bit compatibility.
the current Sqlite on-disk file format may be less robust than it seems. Unscientific ad-hoc enquiries indicate that many IT professionals are familiar with SQLite file corruption. Examples of ad-hoc enquiries are: asking for a show of hands in a room of developers, speaking to the maintainers of SQLite file inspection tools, and chatting to Android developers. The LumoSQL team as of March 2020 are looking at how to artificially create crashes and corruptions as part of testing (and perhaps benchmarking).
There is still a lot for LumoSQL to explore because there is just so much code, but as of March 2020 we are confident code could be assembled from here and there on the internet to demonstrate the following features:
- SQLite with Berkely bdb backend
- SQLite with LevelDB backend
- SQLite with network access from quite a few projects, only some of them listed
- SQLite with MySQL-compatible frontend, from Oracle
- SQLite with MySQL-compatible frontend, from Bedrock
- SQLite with LMDB at WAL-level and then replicated LMDB with consensus, from ActorDB
- SQLite with private blockchain-esque for fast replication to 6-8 nodes, from Bedrock
- SQLite with GIS extensions
- SQLite accessible locally over ODBC
- SQLite with at-rest encryption in many different ways
And plenty more.
Due to the fragmented nature of SQLite landscape, what we cannot demonstrate is:
- APIs for the above features in the same codebase
- any of these interesting features running together in the same binary or using the same database files
- consolidated contact, code curation, bug tracking, licensing across these features and projects
and that is why there really isn't an SQLite ecosystem, just a landscape.
For those users that even realise there are extended feature versions of SQLite around, they have to pick and choose which of these features they want, and usually that means going without some other feature, and it just has a chaotic feel to it. On the other hand, while SQLite has achieved so much, there are compelling reasons to look for an alternative. LumoSQL aims to be that alternative.
It is easy to establish that SQLite3 is deployed in billions of applications around the world, and as sqlite.org has showed it is easy to credibly quote very large deployment numbers.
But what of SQLite in relation to the databases it can be reasonably compared to, especially as the use cases for SQLite have become so broad? There isn't a good answer, and this is something that LumoSQL hopes to change over time as it gains features that feel familiar to users outside traditional embedded development.
SQLite is considered by many to not be database at all, any more than bdb (the original Unix bdb, as still used by a diminishing number of applications) or LMDB. These are all embeddable database libraries. That affects how we measure popularity. This view is also easy to challenge on technical grounds, if the only difference is closeness of the coupling between the application and the database.
The difference in measurement between the online databases and sqlite is significant in these ways:
- Measures of database popularity with developers don’t map well to a database library (see the widely-regarded https://db-engines.com/en/ranking ) because embedded applications use fewer database developers than cloud and other higher-level applications. The commercial value is concentrated in different parts of the stack for these two use cases, although not the commercial risk.
- Industry surveys are indicative but well short of science-based methods, and almost never focussed on embeddable databases and yet nevertheless SQLite is usually included. For example 6000 developers surveyed by Jetbrains and this Developer Week survey
- Being an embeddable library, SQLite is not intended for use in cloud applications and the like, and therefore most surveys of databases do not cover them. As many people including the SQLite developers point out, it is possible to run a web application off SQLite just as much as it is possible to run an email server using Sendmail. Readers of this document are unlikely to be confused that either of these activities are a good idea.
- In contrast, embedded databases are rarely addressed as a sector because the embedded development industry does not tend to be very interested in how data is stored.
(Not counting bdb. We can reasonably discount bdb as a currently-relevant database, because its prevalence is decreasing rapidly and noting the heading “Deprecated in favour of LMDB”, and also looking at the reactions worldwide when Oracle changed the license of the bdb code. bdb is being erased from the world of free software applications.)