I have a client synchronization utility that uses MongoDB instead of SQLite because it's lightweight but I have all ease of use of MongoDB. Install it as a windows service with our installer and we are good to go.
And in this context, MySql would be way to heavy.
Your comment is confusing. Can you please explain:
You replaced sqlite with mongodb, as an embedded database? How can mongodb run without a server?
Are you saying mongodb is more lightweight than sqlite? If so I find this very surprising, can you elaborate?
It's not an embedded scenario per se, but we use it like we would use sqlite. We install MongoDB as a service with our installer. But it's on the local machine, and only that machine (as our our application runs as the server).
MongoDB isn't as light as sqlite, but for our usage the difference was negligable with MongoDB running with around 3MB memory footprint. In the end we get speed and ease of use/flexibility of not having to deal with sql or schemas.
Your comment is confusing. Can you please explain:
You replaced sqlite with mongodb, as an embedded database? How can mongodb run without a server?
Are you saying mongodb is more lightweight than sqlite? If so I find this very surprising, can you elaborate?