Badger support

[jackmcgary]

Love this. Any plans for badger support? Anything you know of that would make it difficult to port? Thx.

[timshannon]

Yeah, I'd definitely love to add badger support. I've been debating whether or not to make it a separate library.

I think I'll see if I can integrate it without too much having to change.

[nkev]

+1 "Badgerhold" would go off, me thinks.

[thumbsized]

+1 for badger. Bolt has blocking transactions(so you have to do batches to get sane performance) whereas badger does not. My latest testing was 250 bolt transactions vs 15 000 badger transactions per second.

[timshannon]

Alright I've opened up a new repository where I'll start on BadgerHold:

https://github.com/timshannon/BadgerHold

Follow the repo there for updates.

[timshannon]

I'm closing this issue, as BadgerHold looks ready for use currently. The master branch passes all tests, although there is one outstanding issue that I'm still working through, and hope to get resolved shortly.

I've also written up a comparison between BoltDB and Badger since I've had the opportunity to implement the exact same library on both databases.

https://tech.townsourced.com/post/boltdb-vs-badger/

[nkev]

@timshannon Great article. I'm surprised about Badgers high memory consumption. My plan was to use multiple badger instances (one for each customer), but now I think I'll go back to BoltDB.

[timshannon]

You should read the exchange here: dgraph-io/badger#704 (comment)

The Dgraph guys themselves, don't seem to have any issues running multiple instances, so you might want to do your own testing to confirm for yourself.