Yes, if you compare it only to things that are exactly like it then it will be in the top percentile. Also the bottom. That doesn't seem very useful. What other embeddable SQL databases should it be compared to? If you don't think this comparison is the correct one, tell me which comparison is. I'll go get the numbers, and I bet I'll still find that SQLite is still neither small nor fast by comparison. Otherwise all this goalpost-moving makes it impossible for anyone to prove anything (not that the pro-SQLite contingent is even trying).
Balancing full SQL semantics with being small enough, fast enough, and commendably reliable is an impressive achievement. I respect the SQLite authors for that. If they had picked any three of "small, fast, reliable, SQL" I would never have objected. BUT. THEY. DIDN'T. They left "SQL" out, opening the comparison to others. For many people who need an embeddable database, a key/value or generically table-oriented (but not fully relational/SQL) database is quite sufficient. For them, a claim based on an unstated and irrelevant fourth criterion, against equally unnamed alternatives, is either useless or misleading. But that's apparently the only kind of comparison the herd will accept.
Balancing full SQL semantics with being small enough, fast enough, and commendably reliable is an impressive achievement. I respect the SQLite authors for that. If they had picked any three of "small, fast, reliable, SQL" I would never have objected. BUT. THEY. DIDN'T. They left "SQL" out, opening the comparison to others. For many people who need an embeddable database, a key/value or generically table-oriented (but not fully relational/SQL) database is quite sufficient. For them, a claim based on an unstated and irrelevant fourth criterion, against equally unnamed alternatives, is either useless or misleading. But that's apparently the only kind of comparison the herd will accept.