<b>Faster import</b>: Writing to a text file is quick. fr.wikipedia.org imports in about 19 minutes whereas sqlite takes about 45 minutes
</li>
<li>
<b>Universal format</b>: Text files are more ubiquitous than a sqlite database.
</li>
<li>
<b>No binary dependence</b>: Almost anything can read a text file; one needs platform-specific binaries to read sqlite
</li>
</ul>
<p>
Advantages of sqlite
</p>
<ul>
<li>
<b>Fewer files</b>: A wiki can be stored in one sqlite file (or several). The XOWA text file hive requires many thousands
</li>
<li>
<b>Simpler development</b>: SQL can be used to select / update records. XOWA includes a lot of code to provide similar functionality.
</li>
<li>
<b>Slightly faster reading</b>: Sqlite allows quicker retrieval when a wiki page has many templates / modules. This speed difference is dependent on the size of the wiki and the disk drive / memory card. Simple Wikipedia may be significantly faster. English Wikipedia may be marginally fasater.
<li><ahref="http://dumps.wikimedia.org/backup-index.html"title="Get wiki datababase dumps directly from Wikimedia">Wikimedia dumps</a></li>
<li><ahref="https://archive.org/search.php?query=xowa"title="Search archive.org for XOWA files">XOWA @ archive.org</a></li>
<li><ahref="http://en.wikipedia.org"title="Visit Wikipedia (and compare to XOWA!)">English Wikipedia</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<divclass="portal"id='xowa-portal-donate'>
<h3>Donate</h3>
<divclass="body">
<ul>
<li><ahref="https://archive.org/donate/index.php"title="Support archive.org!">archive.org</a></li><!-- listed first due to recent fire damages: http://blog.archive.org/2013/11/06/scanning-center-fire-please-help-rebuild/ -->