On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Vincent Pelletier <vinc...@nexedi.com> wrote:
> NEO aims at being a replacement for use-cases where ZEO is used, but
> with better scalability (by allowing data of a single database to be
> distributed over several machines, and by removing database-level
> locking), with failure resilience (by mirroring database content among
> machines). Under the hood, it relies on simple features of SQL
> databases (safe on-disk data structure, efficient memory usage,
> efficient indexes).
How does NEO compare to RelStorage? NEO appears to implement the
storage roughly in the same way; store pickles in tables in a SQL
Some differences that I can see from reading your email:
* NEO takes care of replication itself; RelStorage pushes that
responsibility to the database used.
* NEO supports MySQL and sqlite, RelStorage MySQL, PostgreSQL and Oracle.
* RelStorage can act as a BlobStorage, NEO can not.
Anything else different? Did you make any performance comparisons
between RelStorage and NEO?
For more information about ZODB, see http://zodb.org/
ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org