On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 06:31:05PM +0200, Vincent Pelletier wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 16:31:20 +0200,
> Martijn Pieters wrote :
> > Anything else different? Did you make any performance comparisons
> > between RelStorage and NEO?
>
> I believe the main difference compared to all other ZODB Sto
This is the summary for test reports received on the
zope-tests list between 2012-08-27 00:00:00 UTC and 2012-08-28 00:00:00 UTC:
See the footnotes for test reports of unsuccessful builds.
An up-to date view of the builders is also available in our
buildbot documentation:
http://docs.zope.org/
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 16:31:20 +0200,
Martijn Pieters wrote :
> Anything else different? Did you make any performance comparisons
> between RelStorage and NEO?
I believe the main difference compared to all other ZODB Storage
implementation is the finer-grained locking scheme: in all storage
impleme
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Vincent Pelletier 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 resil
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 14:37:37 +0200,
Vincent Pelletier wrote :
> Under the hood, it relies on simple features of SQL databases
To make things maybe a bit clearer, from the feedback I get:
You can forget about SQL presence. NEO usage of SQL is as a relational
as a handful of python dicts is. Except
