qpid-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Andy Grove" <a...@codesuccess.com>
Subject RE: QPID M2 and Berkley DB
Date Sun, 04 Nov 2007 11:02:34 GMT
Sure. That makes sense. In fact, I'm working on a product/solution where
I'll be using messaging and databases in a transactional way and it's
imperative that the performance of messaging (with persistent messages,
durable subscribers and transactions) is faster than the database
operations. I'm in the process of performance testing a prototype of the
solution and I'll be using QPID M2 and Berkeley DB for now and will see how
the performance looks. 

I don't have experience of HOWL but have worked with low-level transaction
code in the past (implementing an EJB container). I guess there's no reason
why I couldn't just have a go at creating an implementation of the
MessageStore interface - that would at least be a fast way to familiarise
myself with the work involved and see if it makes sense for me to contribute
towards this.



-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Greig [mailto:robert.j.greig@gmail.com] 
Sent: 04 November 2007 10:36
To: qpid-users@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: QPID M2 and Berkley DB

On 04/11/2007, Andy Grove <andy@codesuccess.com> wrote:
> Thanks Robert. I have this building now.


> I would be interested in contributing to an Apache friendly message store
> help is needed. I'm still getting up to speed with AMQP but have extensive
> database and JDBC experience.

Do you have any experience with HOWL? That would be an interesting one
to create for comparison with BDB.

One reason why a JDBC (i.e. relational database backed) store has not
really been progressed is because basically it will perform like a
3-legged giraffe. A persistent message store doesn't really require a
relational database - given the nature of the problem being solved a
much simpler high performance logger is all that is required.


View raw message