-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Should I use graphd-client or storaged-client? #20
Comments
I have tried to test the benchmark of these two methods, but I encountered the same problem #18 while the |
Normally the storage client is for analytical query that scans all data per tag or edge type. While graphd client is the normal one takes graph queries. So it really depends on what we'd like to achieve. One pitfall for storage client is that, it requires to get list of storage host from metad and access storage host from the addresses maintained in metad(service discovery), thus those addresses may not always accessible from the client side(many clusters were deployed in a way treating meta and storage not exposed services). Implementing graphd may be the goto path that will always work. While it won't be a scalable approach when OpenDAL towards NebulaGraph as ETL purposes (scanning whole graph data) |
Thanks for your reply. I'll think about these things carefully. |
General Question
I wanna add Nebula support for Opendal, so I need to treat Nebula as a KV-like database. I plan to do like this:
I found that there are three clients here.
I am curious whether using
graphd-client
orstoraged-client
is better. In terms of feeling, my requirement is very simple, may the latency of connecting tostoraged
server directly be smaller?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: