Low-overhead database to use with .NET 1.1?

[Guest]

I have a product (running on .NET 1.1) that needs to maintain a local
database on the machine it's installed on. I want something with extremely
low resource overhead (i.e. no SQL Server, no MSDE). It needs to be quick
with inserts and selects. It also can not be a memory hog.

I am currently using an XML file for this purpose, but I have found that
using XMLDataDocument and strongly-typed DataSet incurs a huge memory
overhead. What's more, in order to write changes to the DB, the entire XML
document needs to be rewritten. This is not acceptable given that I could
have as many as 500K rows and do frequent updates to rows.

Any recommendations?

 

[Mark Rae]

Any recommendations?

Jet.

 

[Chris Priede]

Any recommendations?

SQLite.

 

[john smith]

SQLite.

I second that, and I would definitely avoid JET.
Have a peek at that article:
http://www.eggheadcafe.com/articles/20051119.asp

 

[Kevin Yu [MSFT]]

Hi,

IMO, Using an XML file to be a database that is frequently written to is
not a good idea. Generally, I will suggest using MSDE. It has good
performance in database insert and update. Since you don't want to use it,
you can try an Access file and using Jet to manipulate it.

Kevin Yu
=======
"This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights."

 

[john smith]

Hi,

IMO, Using an XML file to be a database that is frequently written to is
not a good idea. Generally, I will suggest using MSDE. It has good
performance in database insert and update. Since you don't want to use it,
you can try an Access file and using Jet to manipulate it.

Kevin Yu
=======
"This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights."

Well, why recommend MSDE instead of SQL Server Express, and especially
since he said in his post that either were unsuitable? Jet is even worse
of a suggestion IMHO. SQLite is FAR better than Jet for this purpose -
much faster, less overhead, less dependencies (MDAC and such), none of
the usual jet issues (doesn't scale, files that grow and then break once
you try "compress and repair", corrupted files, etc etc).

 

[Kevin Yu [MSFT]]

Hi,

My brain is still in the world of SQL Server 2000.

Yes, like john smith mentioned, SQL Server Express is a better choice.

Kevin Yu
=======
"This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights."

 

[Guest]

Thanks for all the suggestions. If I'm not mistaken SQL Server Express
requires .NET 2.0. I think it's a great system, but I'm concerned with the
impact on users... ("Please wait while we install SQL Server on your
laptop...").