The fastest and simplest library for SQLite3 in Node.js.
- Full transaction support
- High performance, efficiency, and safety
- Easy-to-use synchronous API (faster than an asynchronous API... yes, you read that correctly)
- Support for user-defined functions, aggregates, and extensions
- 64-bit integers (invisible until you need them)
Help this project stay strong!
better-sqlite3 is used by thousands of developers and engineers on a daily basis. Long nights and weekends were spent keeping this project strong and dependable, with no ask for compensation or funding, until now. If your company uses
better-sqlite3, ask your manager to consider supporting the project:
How other libraries compare
|select 1 row
||select 100 rows
||select 100 rows
||insert 1 row
||insert 100 rows in a transaction|
|sqlite and sqlite3||10.4x slower||2.2x slower||18.8x slower||2.8x slower||12.9x slower|
You can verify these results by running the benchmark yourself.
npm install --save better-sqlite3
If you have trouble installing, check the troubleshooting guide.
const db = require('better-sqlite3')('foobar.db', options); const row = db.prepare('SELECT * FROM users WHERE id=?').get(userId); console.log(row.firstName, row.lastName, row.email);
node-sqlite3uses asynchronous APIs for tasks that are either CPU-bound or serialized. That's not only bad design, but it wastes tons of resources. It also causes mutex thrashing which has devastating effects on performance.
node-sqlite3exposes low-level (C language) memory management functions.
better-sqlite3is simpler to use, and it provides nice utilities for some operations that are very difficult or impossible in
better-sqlite3is much faster than
node-sqlite3in most cases, and just as fast in all other cases.
When is this library not appropriate?
In most cases, if you're attempting something that cannot be reasonably accomplished with
better-sqlite3, it probably cannot be reasonably accomplished with SQLite3 in general. For example, if you're executing queries that take one second to complete, and you expect to have many concurrent users executing those queries, no amount of asynchronicity will save you from SQLite3's serialized nature. Fortunately, SQLite3 is very very fast. With proper indexing, we've been able to achieve upward of 2000 queries per second with 5-way-joins in a 60 GB database, where each query was handling 5–50 kilobytes of real data.
If you have a performance problem, the most likely causes are inefficient queries, improper indexing, or a lack of WAL mode—not
better-sqlite3 itself. However, there are some cases where
better-sqlite3 could be inappropriate:
- If you expect a high volume of concurrent reads each returning many megabytes of data (i.e., videos)
- If you expect a high volume of concurrent writes (i.e., a social media site)
- If your database's size is near the terabyte range
For these situations, you should probably use a full-fledged RDBMS such as PostgreSQL.
- API documentation
- Performance (also see benchmark results)
- 64-bit integer support
- SQLite3 compilation