SQLite very rarely changes defaults because of their commitment to backwards compatibility. They don't want software written against SQLite 3.53 to start throwing errors when upgraded to 3.54 because suddenly `CREATE TABLE` is creating strict tables and the rest of the software breaks as a result.
Well no, the software should be configured in its best state by default. Otherwise you run into the case where the user has to read the documentation like a legal contract to find all the footguns that need disabling. If STRICT is strictly better, than that should be the default. The correct approach here would be for the user to pass along a "compatibility version" tag when first connecting, which would set the defaults to whatever was default in that version. That should be something you force each user to set in their source and it should never ever have a "latest" value. It may be too late for sqlite, but if I were designing an API that had to remain stable for decades now, I would put an enum with possible versions in a header and require the user to pick one.
There are more similar issues, like disabling foreign key constraints by default "for compatibility reasons". Makes me wonder if there was a time when SQLite supported foreign key syntax, but didn't actually implement the functionality.
That quote leaves open whether SQLite "pretended" to support foreign keys by allowing to create tables with them, but didn't implement them. Otherwise, I don't see the compatibility problem.
Yeah it's a really weird design decision. Why would I want the database to let me accidentally insert the wrong type? SQLite is mostly great but its philosophy towards type safety leaves something to be desired. I once had to clean up in a project where someone had accidentally stored the strings '1' and '0' in a Boolean column in code deployed to thousands of devices; not fun.
Another thing I dislike is the lack of timestamp types. Instead, you're expected to just use a text column and store a textual timestamp. Even worse, instead of using ISO, the standard date time functions produce strings on the form "yyyy-mm-dd HH:MM:SS" which you're just supposed to assume are in UTC. Why not at least give us "yyyy-mm-ddTHH:MM:SSZ"? Or, you know, a proper space efficient timestamp data type.
A truly great project, with some truly baffling design decisions.
> Instead, you're expected to just use a text column and store a textual timestamp.
You can actually use an integer column and store Unix timestamps (or floats for subsecond accuracy).
But yes, sqlite has very little types support and its default behaviour is very much unityped / dynamically typed which I also dislike. Same with having to enable foreign keys every time you open a connection.
'0' and '1', while not ideal, seems fine to maintain? There is not even a true SQLite boolean type.
Then again, I have been subjected to Oracle nonsense for too long and have had to accept all of the boolean alternatives: 0,1,'0','1',Y,N,y,n,YES,NO,T,F, etc
If every time the SQLite team added a better default for something they changed it, we'd be at SQLite 11 by now and every application would contain at least six incompatible versions of SQLite.
If you are using SQLite as an embedded database, which seems to be SQLite's primary use-case, why wouldn't you prove statically that you are not accidentally inserting the wrong type? Runtime checks are unnecessary overhead.
Runtime validation is there to enable when using SQLite in other ways.
The downside of strict tables is that some data types are not available, such as Date.
Strict should really be the default. If a database is shared by multiple applications then you should be able to rely on the declared data type. If one application stores a string into a numeric column that breaks everyone else.
On the other hand, the main use case for SQLite is embedded databases. And that means only one application is using the database. In that scenario being able to evolve the schema (as opposed to creating a new database and copying the data over) can be seen as an advantage. The application's code knows what to expect in each column--including mixed data types.
SQLite has no date data type. Also SQLite has no way to call EXPLAIN on query and get the dummy type name either for arbitrary SELECT query, so you can't even infer it, if you were to use the dummy type name "DATE" or "DATETIME".
I had a UUID (partly?) mis-converted to a number if the UUID started w (from memory) something like 08123… which was parsed as octal. Confusing, annoying, fixed w “strict” and a complete table rebuild.
Yeah my DB is the one place I want strict types. Well also RPCs. But SQLite is a somewhat different set of use cases, so maybe I'd understand https://sqlite.org/flextypegood.html more if I were using it. Like there's a point about random scripts not made for SQLite happening to work with it, which isn't normally a consideration for other DBMSes.
Sure, but you lose the representation of the developer’s intention that way. I would be pretty pissed off if I inherited a project and the schema was all ANYs.
The developer's intention is that anything can go in there.
You would only inherit a project where everything was ANY if anything could go anywhere.
With SQLite's default behavior, anything can always go anywhere, so the type definitions are at best semi-accidentally observed by the code, and at worst completely misleading. You have no idea which of the two the developer intended.
I get the impression that this SQLite behavior is a historical oddity caused by the original use case for the tool, rather than something that was intentionally planned and thought through, and was later retconned to be intentional and benign. To me, it makes no sense, even after reading the explanation on sqlite's website.
Sure it is. If you encounter something that’s not an int, that could be a signal you have a bug in your writers. Or in the source of the data. That’s useful information compared to “oh, I have some ints and some strings, that’s ANY, everything is ok.”
I’m kind of curious why the decision to have implicit casting like this was made in the first place. I can’t think of a single upside other than not having to type out cast(foo as bar)
SQLite was originally started as a local database library for use during development for times when the main networked database was not available. It used dbm as the underlying storage mechanism, with the dbm API roughly being string keys with string values. ie all underlying values were actually stored as strings. The SQLite code would automatically do conversions - eg the plus operator would convert the strings to int or float, add them, and generate a stringified number as a result. The vast majority of implementation code did not have to care about types, and very local decisions could be made such as in the addition example.
TCL was used as a dev wrapper language at the time, and it functioned the same way.
It was only in mid-2004 that SQLite 3 was released which used its own storage backend, and that allowed for the 5 supported storage types (int64, string, bytes, float, null). It was API compatible (with minor adjustments) with the earlier SQLite 2, so the lack of static typing continued, otherwise everyone would have to rewrite their code. You do get dynamic typing, which hasn't been a problem for the vast majority of SQLite users.
Do remember that SQLite is competition for fopen, not Oracle / Postgres etc. It is trying to make things as effective as possible in that scenario. If you don't want numbers in your string column, then don't do that!
It's even worse than implicit casting, if the value can't be cast to the the column's type, it's just inserted without casting. Eg. into an integer column, '10' -> 10 and '1O' -> '1O'
That is documented behaviour - think of it as making a best effort, and not losing the value.
As of January 2006 you could add CHECK constraints using the TYPEOF function to reject that at the SQL level. And it is your own code - there is no server - doing the insertions. As was common back then, protecting you from your own bugs was not a high priority for APIs!
I think I can see how dynamic data types make sense (eg flat key/value store), but my question would be:
What is least surprising? That INTEGER implicity accepts 'hello world' without error, or that you can't insert such a value unless you use a keyword like NONSTRICT or a type like ANY?
I would wager the vast majority of SQLite users if asked would probably not expect it to work.
I really hate this trend of turning every piece of software into this kafkaesque monstrosity that demands you jump through 100 hurdles to do the simplest thing. I mean yeah its good for LLMs but as a human it gets kind of annoying. I honestly love that if you hand SQLite garbage it will do its best.
If you're stuck with an older version of SQLite and/or want to enforce order on an existing table without creating a new table with STRICT and then copying all your rows over and/or also want to do things like enforce signedness, int size, or char/varchar length on a field like you can in other DBs, you can use CHECK constraints.
CREATE TABLE users (
user_id CHAR(36) NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY CONSTRAINT user_id_length CHECK (LENGTH(user_id) = 36),
email_address VARCHAR(255) UNIQUE CONSTRAINT email_address_length CHECK (email_address IS NULL OR LENGTH(email_address) < 256),
role UNSIGNED TINYINT(1) NOT NULL CONSTRAINT role_valid CHECK (role >= 0 AND role <= 9)
)
Note that the column types here are just to describe to the user what the field should be doing and it's the constraints that actually enforce it. Behind the scenes SQLite still creates two "text (supposedly but whatever)" and one "integer (supposedly but whatever)" columns.
It's a little frustrating that all this extra cruft is necessary to get the world's most popular RDBMS to take data correctness seriously. I hope that some SQLite fork that behaves more like other RDBMSes when it comes to this stuff catches on some day, but the fact that that hasn't happened yet makes me think that the demand isn't there, somehow, unfortunately.
Yes, the process at https://www.sqlite.org/lang_altertable.html is super risky - 12 steps and a giant CAUTION sidebar about the data loss possible if you do it incorrectly.
They DO include a nice section at the bottom about why these limitations exist, but I wish they would make the process easier.
Using Entity Framework, this doesn't come up as a particular issue, but I still wish it were strict by default because I expect there could be some performance optimizations made for de/serialization.