RabbitMQ vs pg-amqp-bridge

Overview

RabbitMQ

Stacks21.8K

Followers18.9K

Votes558

GitHub Stars13.2K

Forks4.0K

pg-amqp-bridge

Stacks0

Followers7

Votes0

GitHub Stars374

Forks38

RabbitMQ vs pg-amqp-bridge: What are the differences?

Introduction

When comparing RabbitMQ and pg-amqp-bridge, there are key differences that should be noted for anyone considering these technologies for their project.

Protocol Support: RabbitMQ natively supports the AMQP protocol and is heavily optimized for it. On the other hand, pg-amqp-bridge serves as a bridge between PostgreSQL and AMQP, enabling communication between the two systems through this translation layer.
Purpose: RabbitMQ is a general-purpose message broker that can be used for various messaging patterns such as publish/subscribe, point-to-point, etc. Conversely, pg-amqp-bridge is specifically designed to allow interaction between PostgreSQL databases and external applications via AMQP.
Scalability: RabbitMQ is known for its scalability and can handle a large number of connections and messages efficiently. In contrast, pg-amqp-bridge may not scale as well when dealing with a high volume of messages or connections due to its dependency on PostgreSQL for data handling.
Message Persistence: RabbitMQ provides built-in mechanisms for message persistence, ensuring that messages are not lost in case of system failures. While pg-amqp-bridge can leverage the persistence capabilities of PostgreSQL, it may require additional configuration to achieve the same level of message durability.
Community Support: RabbitMQ has a large and active community that continuously contributes to its development, provides support, and shares best practices. Meanwhile, pg-amqp-bridge may have a smaller community, making it potentially harder to find resources or assistance when facing issues or challenges.
Ease of Use: RabbitMQ offers a user-friendly interface and extensive documentation, making it relatively easy to set up and configure for various use cases. In comparison, configuring pg-amqp-bridge may require a higher level of expertise due to its specific integration with PostgreSQL and AMQP.

In Summary, the key differences between RabbitMQ and pg-amqp-bridge revolve around protocol support, purpose, scalability, message persistence, community support, and ease of use.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs

CLI (Node.js)

Manual

Advice on RabbitMQ, pg-amqp-bridge

viradiya

Apr 12, 2020

Needs adviceon

AngularJS

ASP.NET Core

MSSQL

We are going to develop a microservices-based application. It consists of AngularJS, ASP.NET Core, and MSSQL.

We have 3 types of microservices. Emailservice, Filemanagementservice, Filevalidationservice

I am a beginner in microservices. But I have read about RabbitMQ, but come to know that there are Redis and Kafka also in the market. So, I want to know which is best.

933k views933k

Comments

Pulkit

Software Engineer

Oct 30, 2020

Needs adviceon

Django

Amazon SQS

RabbitMQ

Hi! I am creating a scraping system in Django, which involves long running tasks between 1 minute & 1 Day. As I am new to Message Brokers and Task Queues, I need advice on which architecture to use for my system. ( Amazon SQS, RabbitMQ, or Celery). The system should be autoscalable using Kubernetes(K8) based on the number of pending tasks in the queue.

474k views474k

Comments

Kirill

GO/C developer at Duckling Sales

Feb 16, 2021

Decided

Maybe not an obvious comparison with Kafka, since Kafka is pretty different from rabbitmq. But for small service, Rabbit as a pubsub platform is super easy to use and pretty powerful. Kafka as an alternative was the original choice, but its really a kind of overkill for a small-medium service. Especially if you are not planning to use k8s, since pure docker deployment can be a pain because of networking setup. Google PubSub was another alternative, its actually pretty cheap, but I never tested it since Rabbit was matching really good for mailing/notification services.

266k views266k

Comments

Detailed Comparison

RabbitMQ	pg-amqp-bridge
RabbitMQ gives your applications a common platform to send and receive messages, and your messages a safe place to live until received.	This tool enables a decoupled architecture, think sending emails when a user signs up. Instead of having explicit code in your signup function that does the work (and slows down your response), you just have to worry about inserting the row into the database.
Robust messaging for applications;Easy to use;Runs on all major operating systems;Supports a huge number of developer platforms;Open source and commercially supported	-
Statistics
GitHub Stars 13.2K	GitHub Stars 374
GitHub Forks 4.0K	GitHub Forks 38
Stacks 21.8K	Stacks 0
Followers 18.9K	Followers 7
Votes 558	Votes 0
Pros & Cons
Pros 235 It's fast and it works with good metrics/monitoring 80 Ease of configuration 60 I like the admin interface 52 Easy to set-up and start with 22 Durable Cons 9 Too complicated cluster/HA config and management 6 Needs Erlang runtime. Need ops good with Erlang runtime 5 Configuration must be done first, not by your code 4 Slow	No community feedback yet
Integrations
No integrations available	PostgreSQL

What are some alternatives to RabbitMQ, pg-amqp-bridge?

Kafka

Kafka is a distributed, partitioned, replicated commit log service. It provides the functionality of a messaging system, but with a unique design.

Celery

Celery is an asynchronous task queue/job queue based on distributed message passing. It is focused on real-time operation, but supports scheduling as well.

Amazon SQS

Transmit any volume of data, at any level of throughput, without losing messages or requiring other services to be always available. With SQS, you can offload the administrative burden of operating and scaling a highly available messaging cluster, while paying a low price for only what you use.

NSQ

NSQ is a realtime distributed messaging platform designed to operate at scale, handling billions of messages per day. It promotes distributed and decentralized topologies without single points of failure, enabling fault tolerance and high availability coupled with a reliable message delivery guarantee. See features & guarantees.

ActiveMQ

Apache ActiveMQ is fast, supports many Cross Language Clients and Protocols, comes with easy to use Enterprise Integration Patterns and many advanced features while fully supporting JMS 1.1 and J2EE 1.4. Apache ActiveMQ is released under the Apache 2.0 License.

ZeroMQ

The 0MQ lightweight messaging kernel is a library which extends the standard socket interfaces with features traditionally provided by specialised messaging middleware products. 0MQ sockets provide an abstraction of asynchronous message queues, multiple messaging patterns, message filtering (subscriptions), seamless access to multiple transport protocols and more.

Apache NiFi

An easy to use, powerful, and reliable system to process and distribute data. It supports powerful and scalable directed graphs of data routing, transformation, and system mediation logic.

Gearman

Gearman allows you to do work in parallel, to load balance processing, and to call functions between languages. It can be used in a variety of applications, from high-availability web sites to the transport of database replication events.

Memphis

Highly scalable and effortless data streaming platform. Made to enable developers and data teams to collaborate and build real-time and streaming apps fast.

IronMQ

An easy-to-use highly available message queuing service. Built for distributed cloud applications with critical messaging needs. Provides on-demand message queuing with advanced features and cloud-optimized performance.

Related Comparisons

Bootstrap vs Materialize

Django vs Laravel vs Node.js

Bootstrap vs Foundation vs Material UI

Node.js vs Spring-Boot

Flyway vs Liquibase

RabbitMQ vs pg-amqp-bridge: What are the differences?

Introduction

When comparing RabbitMQ and pg-amqp-bridge, there are key differences that should be noted for anyone considering these technologies for their project.

Protocol Support: RabbitMQ natively supports the AMQP protocol and is heavily optimized for it. On the other hand, pg-amqp-bridge serves as a bridge between PostgreSQL and AMQP, enabling communication between the two systems through this translation layer.
Purpose: RabbitMQ is a general-purpose message broker that can be used for various messaging patterns such as publish/subscribe, point-to-point, etc. Conversely, pg-amqp-bridge is specifically designed to allow interaction between PostgreSQL databases and external applications via AMQP.
Scalability: RabbitMQ is known for its scalability and can handle a large number of connections and messages efficiently. In contrast, pg-amqp-bridge may not scale as well when dealing with a high volume of messages or connections due to its dependency on PostgreSQL for data handling.
Message Persistence: RabbitMQ provides built-in mechanisms for message persistence, ensuring that messages are not lost in case of system failures. While pg-amqp-bridge can leverage the persistence capabilities of PostgreSQL, it may require additional configuration to achieve the same level of message durability.
Community Support: RabbitMQ has a large and active community that continuously contributes to its development, provides support, and shares best practices. Meanwhile, pg-amqp-bridge may have a smaller community, making it potentially harder to find resources or assistance when facing issues or challenges.
Ease of Use: RabbitMQ offers a user-friendly interface and extensive documentation, making it relatively easy to set up and configure for various use cases. In comparison, configuring pg-amqp-bridge may require a higher level of expertise due to its specific integration with PostgreSQL and AMQP.

In Summary, the key differences between RabbitMQ and pg-amqp-bridge revolve around protocol support, purpose, scalability, message persistence, community support, and ease of use.