Apache Pulsar vs pg-amqp-bridge

Overview

Apache Pulsar

Stacks118

Followers199

Votes24

pg-amqp-bridge

Stacks0

Followers7

Votes0

GitHub Stars374

Forks38

Apache Pulsar vs pg-amqp-bridge: What are the differences?

Apache Pulsar and pg-amqp-bridge are two different technologies used for messaging and data streaming in real-time applications. While both serve the purpose of enabling communication between different components of a system, there are key differences that distinguish them from each other.

Messaging Model: Apache Pulsar uses a publish-subscribe messaging model, where publishers send messages to topics, and subscribers receive messages from those topics. On the other hand, pg-amqp-bridge is a message broker that bridges between PostgreSQL databases and AMQP messaging systems, enabling data flow between the two.
Complexity: Apache Pulsar is a more complex and feature-rich messaging system that offers advanced functionalities such as multi-tenancy, geo-replication, and tiered storage. In contrast, pg-amqp-bridge focuses on providing a straightforward and efficient bridge between PostgreSQL and AMQP, with minimal complexity.
Scalability: Apache Pulsar is designed for horizontal scalability, allowing it to handle a large volume of data and users by distributing the load across multiple servers. Pg-amqp-bridge, on the other hand, is primarily focused on enabling communication between PostgreSQL databases and AMQP messaging systems, without emphasizing scalability features.
Community Support: Apache Pulsar has a vibrant and active community of developers and contributors who regularly update and enhance the platform with new features and improvements. Pg-amqp-bridge, being more specialized in its functionality, may have a smaller community and less frequent updates compared to Apache Pulsar.
Use Cases: Apache Pulsar is commonly used in a wide range of applications requiring real-time data streaming, event processing, and messaging between microservices. Pg-amqp-bridge is more specific in its use case, facilitating efficient data transfer between PostgreSQL databases and AMQP messaging systems, typically in scenarios where integration between these technologies is required.

In Summary, Apache Pulsar and pg-amqp-bridge differ in terms of messaging model, complexity, scalability, community support, and use cases, catering to different requirements in the realm of messaging and data streaming technologies.

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

Detailed Comparison

Apache Pulsar	pg-amqp-bridge
Apache Pulsar is a distributed messaging solution developed and released to open source at Yahoo. Pulsar supports both pub-sub messaging and queuing in a platform designed for performance, scalability, and ease of development and operation.	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.
Unified model supporting pub-sub messaging and queuing; Easy scalability to millions of topics; Native multi-datacenter replication; Multi-language client API; Guaranteed data durability; Scalable distributed storage leveraging Apache BookKeeper	-
Statistics
GitHub Stars -	GitHub Stars 374
GitHub Forks -	GitHub Forks 38
Stacks 118	Stacks 0
Followers 199	Followers 7
Votes 24	Votes 0
Pros & Cons
Pros 7 Simple 4 Scalable 3 High-throughput 2 Geo-replication 2 Multi-tenancy Cons 1 Not jms compliant 1 No guaranteed dliefvery 1 No one and only one delivery 1 LImited Language support(6) 1 Very few commercial vendors for support	No community feedback yet
Integrations
No integrations available	PostgreSQL RabbitMQ

What are some alternatives to Apache Pulsar, 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.

RabbitMQ

RabbitMQ gives your applications a common platform to send and receive messages, and your messages a safe place to live until received.

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.

Related Comparisons

Apache Pulsar vs pg-amqp-bridge: What are the differences?

Messaging Model: Apache Pulsar uses a publish-subscribe messaging model, where publishers send messages to topics, and subscribers receive messages from those topics. On the other hand, pg-amqp-bridge is a message broker that bridges between PostgreSQL databases and AMQP messaging systems, enabling data flow between the two.
Complexity: Apache Pulsar is a more complex and feature-rich messaging system that offers advanced functionalities such as multi-tenancy, geo-replication, and tiered storage. In contrast, pg-amqp-bridge focuses on providing a straightforward and efficient bridge between PostgreSQL and AMQP, with minimal complexity.
Scalability: Apache Pulsar is designed for horizontal scalability, allowing it to handle a large volume of data and users by distributing the load across multiple servers. Pg-amqp-bridge, on the other hand, is primarily focused on enabling communication between PostgreSQL databases and AMQP messaging systems, without emphasizing scalability features.
Community Support: Apache Pulsar has a vibrant and active community of developers and contributors who regularly update and enhance the platform with new features and improvements. Pg-amqp-bridge, being more specialized in its functionality, may have a smaller community and less frequent updates compared to Apache Pulsar.
Use Cases: Apache Pulsar is commonly used in a wide range of applications requiring real-time data streaming, event processing, and messaging between microservices. Pg-amqp-bridge is more specific in its use case, facilitating efficient data transfer between PostgreSQL databases and AMQP messaging systems, typically in scenarios where integration between these technologies is required.

Apache Pulsar vs pg-amqp-bridge

Overview