SQLite vs Key-Value Store: Better for Web Apps?

SQLite is arguably the most successful piece of software in history. It is fast, ACID-compliant, and runs everywhere. For local development, it is undefeated. But for the modern web (Serverless, Edge, Distributed), SQLite has a deployment problem.

The Data Locality Issue

SQLite is a file. db.sqlite. To read it, your process needs direct filesystem access to that file.

1. Serverless (Lambda/Vercel): The filesystem is ephemeral. You can't write to db.sqlite because it disappears when the function finishes.
2. Docker Containers: If you scale to 5 containers, you now have 5 separate db.sqlite files. They are out of sync.
3. The "S3 Solution": Some tools (like LiteFS) try to sync SQLite to S3. It works, but it adds significant complexity and write latency.

The Key-Value Alternative

A remote Key-Value store (like BaseKV or Redis) solves the distribution problem natively.

• Architecture: Client-Server. Your 100 Lambda functions all connect to one database.
• Protocol: TCP/HTTP. No shared filesystem required.

Performance Comparison

• Read Latency:
  • SQLite (Local): Microseconds (~10µs). It's just a syscall.
  • Key-Value (Remote): Milliseconds (~1-5ms). Network RTT.
• Write Throughput:
  • SQLite: Limited by single-writer lock on the file.
  • Key-Value: Designed for high concurrency.

When to use which?

• SQLite: Mobile apps, Electron apps, Single-server VPSS where you don't scale horizontally.
• Key-Value: Web apps running on Vercel/Netlify/AWS, distributed systems, high-concurrency APIs.

Conclusion

SQLite is great for "Local". Key-Value is great for "Distributed". If you are building a modern web app, you are likely distributed by default. Don't fight the filesystem.

Switch to a cloud-native Key-Value store. Try BaseKV.