Andre, <br><br>I started a thread about it a few months ago. Well, instead of increase the key length we used a MD5 algorithm on the keys and then we sent to memcached. The overhead of this is very slow and you still save memory, cause if you increase the key size, the allocated memory for each object cached will increase too.
<br><br>[]´s<br>Renato<br><br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 5/30/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">André Cruz</b> <<a href="mailto:andre.cruz@segula.pt">andre.cruz@segula.pt</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hello all.<br><br>Regarding thread <a href="http://lists.danga.com/pipermail/memcached/2007-">http://lists.danga.com/pipermail/memcached/2007-</a><br>January/003391.html it was said that I could raise the KEY_MAX_LENGTH<br>
to 256 and memcache would still behave correctly. I would like to<br>confirm this information and ask if the apr_memcache client would<br>work well this way.<br><br>I skimmed the source of the client and didn't find any glaring
<br>problem but just in case...<br><br>Thanks,<br>André Cruz </blockquote></div><br>