edaly at nextwavemedia.com
Thu Jun 23 10:29:38 PDT 2005
Each table has a unique set of columns, so they can't be
merged. In any case, as I mentioned earlier, it seems
extremely wasteful to cache entire tables when only 10% of
the rows are active.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Phillips" <electrum at gmail.com>
To: <memcached at lists.danga.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: Namespaces
> On 6/23/05, Eamon Daly <edaly at nextwavemedia.com> wrote:
>> I have 100 tables, each containing 20,000
>> rows, with zipcode as the PK. When a zipcode comes in, our
>> application checks each table and reports which tables
>> contain that zipcode.
> If you only have 2,000,000 rows, why not store them all in the same
> table? It should be a lot faster than checking one hundred tables
> each time. It sounds like you could do something like this:
> SELECT data FROM zips WHERE zipcode = '$zip' ORDER BY version DESC LIMIT
> If your average record size is less than about 1k, you could cache the
> entire thing in memory.
More information about the memcached