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 database. 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? -- Martijn Pieters _______________________________________________ For more information about ZODB, see http://zodb.org/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev