3 ms·
Is it accurate to describe this as a faster Redis that doesn't have all of the useful data structures like lists, sets, etc?
by throwaway420 13y ago
Is it accurate to describe this as a faster Redis that doesn't have all of the useful data structures like lists, sets, etc?
- meowface 13y agoYes, somewhat. It's also different from Redis because Redis is intended to be ran as a server (it stands for Remote Dictionary Server). This is ran entirely as a process and communicates via IPC; other machines can't reach the database, only the local machine. This is a big reason for why it's very fast. However, it also means you can't distribute the database across multiple servers. You could think of it like a very fast NoSQL Sqlite, I guess.
- marshray 13y agoSounds like some specific collection type that one might build with Boost.Interprocess. http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_54_0/doc/html/interprocess/allocators_containers.html http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_54_0/doc/html/interprocess/a...
- StavrosK 13y agoI keep wondering why there isn't a libredis you can just link into your program without needing to run a server and all that. It sounds very useful, but I'm not sure how hard it would be to develop.
- meowface 13y agoFor the same reason you can't do that with MySQL or Postgres or any other database server. Redis intended to be ran as a server listening for TCP connections, and communicating over a TCP/IP network. If you're running it on localhost, the communication should generally be pretty fast, but you're right that overhead will still be incurred. It would require adding a lot more code to allow for typical interprocess communication.
- lttlrck 13y agoProbably. Though it would be inaccurate to say it is in any way equivalent to Redis.