bsddb3 vs zodb

[vincent delft]

I just would like to have a very small DB with concurrent read and write.

I've a daemon collect data and store them into the DB.

But I've other processes (not deamon) that will read and write into the same
DB.

I've founded bsddb3 and zodb that can match those simple requirements.
But ZODB is maybe too sophisticate for my simple problem.
What about the performances (how many read/write per seconds, what about the
memory used by those solutions, ...)







Andrew Dalke wrote:

> vincent delft wrote:
> >does any one as analyze the pro and cons (functionalities, performances,
> >...) between Berkley DB3 (bsddb3) and ZODB ?
>
> They aren't the same.
>
> bsddb3 does key/value mappings, where both terms are strings.
> This is extremely useful.  But if you don't have strings you
> need to tell it how and when to do the conversion.  There
> is support for an automatic pickling interface for adding and
> removing elements from the database, but it doesn't know
> about changes to the data structure once it's pulled out of
> the database, and it doesn't deal well with having data shared
> across different elements.
>
> ZODB is a full object persistence system, meaning you can
> keep your data as a Python data structure and let ZODB figure
> out how to store that data - there's no need for explicit
> data structure to/from file I/O code.  (So long as your object
> supports pickles.)
>
> ZODB supports bsddb3 as one way of doing storage.
>
>   http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/BerkeleyStorage
>
> What are you trying to do?  That makes it easier to answer
> your question.
>
>                     Andrew