OIC. Ok, very interesting. thanks for the info.

Bill

>For a single user scenario there is IMO no clear dimension making one product the better one. Perf with "typical" data sets is fast enough, But that can be said for every SQL freebie of the costly big vendors and for mayor the OS rivals.
>
>Install is easier / less resource consuming with SQLite, but factors like familiarity with the SQL dialect used come into play if you do not use an ORM. Integration into the MS stack is better with the MS tools and if you have the developer version, tuning is probably easier (but probably not necessary). SQLite OTOH is probably the most widly used (and in some sense "tested") SQL due to its integration in many OS applications, devices and even Python as a language part.
>
>For me the availability of SQLite even on smartphones (and half dumb ones as in old Nokia Symbian) is the lure: as it works well in underpowered devices, that should ease any worries you have. If OTOH you are deep into the MS stack, staying with the free offerings from MS is an idea easy to argue for ;-)
>
>no battle winning arguements I can offer for any tool for such usage, all are good enough.
>
>thomas
>
>>Understood. I was thinking primarily of the local, single-user scenario. Several years ago we did have a desktop application that was deployed to several sites using SQL Server Express as a multi-user backend and it performed quite well but the user load was small in all cases.
>>
>>I was just wondering about the comparison of SSE with SqlLite since I have not used SqlLite.
>>
>>Bill
>>