FWIW I use atuin (https://atuin.sh/) and am reasonably happy with it, especially the infinite capacity & snapiness. Ignoring the sync features, I believe it's also sqlite backed when running in local-only mode.
AFAIK it is always backed by a sqlite DB. That way the sync just populates the DB and the completion process doesn't care (or wait for) the central source.
is there a particular reason why i'd want sqlite-backed shell history? i mean sure it works but why not a text file? (which i'd assume is somewhat faster because you can just append)
i guess you could say it's because you may want dates for each command but for that you can just use a CSV or TSV file no?
seems to only have session agnostic history and a TUI for searching it, because the author didn't want all the features atuin offers. only 400 LOC too, pretty neat
For me the killer feature of atuin is that it allows searching the history of commands executed from the current working directory. Typically I have 10,000 plus commands in history but only a few in the current directory and I tend to run the same complex commands from the same directory.
i guess you could say it's because you may want dates for each command but for that you can just use a CSV or TSV file no?
does it have to do with the searching?
Also I do like the premise, recently stopped using atuin due to all the extra bells and whistles and just went back to fzf.
It is written entirely in shell script, with the only dependency being sqlite itself.