On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 19:15:38 UTC+1, Ian wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:52 AM, <jimzuo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Link: https://github.com/JimChengLin/AsyncDB > > > > I always wonder why people do not make an async DB, when they are crazy > > with async web framework. Hard disks are faster than the Internet, but > > still pretty slow compared to CPU/RAM. > > In-process dbm-style databases aren't really all that popular though, > are they? At least, I never hear much about them. It seems to me that > most people use out-of-process SQL or NoSQL databases. For those, the > details of the database implementation aren't very important to the > user, and all that is really needed is an async client library, such > as aiopg. > > I wonder if there's a need for a version 3 of the Python DBAPI spec > including async operations? > > > My implementation is not pure async though. The insert and del actions are > > half async due to there is not async __setitem__. I prefer a neat API over > > performance. > > Would it be going too far if we had async versions of all the special > methods: __ainit__, __asetitem__, __aiadd__, etc.?
We do not have to have all special methods. Indeed, we just need an async __setitem__. At least, it is my proposal. Would the core dev team consider it? I think in-process DB is quite popular in less serious development, e.g. SQLite. A sync DB with async connections can be treated as "async DB". But still, it is "evil" :). You know what I mean? It is about purity. Haha -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
