Performance when changing the length of a keys value. (It gets really bad.)

Alex Stapleton alexs at
Thu Jul 14 03:02:27 PDT 2005

On 14 Jul 2005, at 10:55, Ivan Krstic wrote:

> Alex Stapleton wrote:
>> OK, Here are my tests running the tummy3 fork. Summary: It's a lot
>> better than the danga version.
> Brad made it clear on the list that he has no interest in maintaining
> the Python client, and wants to withdraw the one that's on Danga's  
> site,
> linking to the tummy one instead. I thought this was done, but it  
> turned
> out not to be. Brad: is there any reason not to do this?
>> It takes a lot longer. Doing tests with smaller samples (like 10-50
>> instead of 5000) it suggests that it gets >100 times slower when your
>> block size gets that large.
> Have you profiled your code? Can you pinpoint where time is being  
> spent?
>  This doesn't sound like a problem with the memcached server, and  
> given
> that Danga no longer maintains the Python client, you will probably  
> have
> better luck taking it up with the tummy folks, or a general Python
> discussion list.
> -IK

I have patched the tummy3 fork into working with large block sizes  
(it writes out large chunks of the string). So I am happy now. I will  
contact the tummy maintainer about it. Thanks for putting up with me.

More information about the memcached mailing list