The Speed of memcached

Brad Fitzpatrick brad at
Wed Oct 12 10:50:45 PDT 2005

If you rolled your own client, are you doing TCP_NODELAY?  That tends to
be the first thing to bite people.

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Peter Alberer wrote:

> Hi there,
> i have created a simple tcl-based client api to memcached for use in the
> aolserver webserver. after the completion of the client api, my first
> tests showed
> that the memcached server is quite slow when saving values, compared to
> my database (postgresql 8.0). i would like to mention, that i only open
> the communication sockets once for all the
> operations and cache it in the api.
> i created a test-loop that saves 100 different keys (test1-100) with the
> same value (value length is about 1000 characters) to 2 different
> memcached servers (50 each),
> rereads all of the values and deletes all of them afterwards. (no multi
> get, just 100 single get commands)
> Here are the results measured in ms:
> Memcache SET: Processed 100 items in 4060 ms
> Memcache GET: Processed 100 items in 438 ms
> Memcache DELETE: Processed 100 items in 82 ms
> The set command is quite slow, compared to the get and delete command.
> are the numbers i am getting here reasonable? interestingly,
> the VERY FIRST set command completes in 0-1 ms, but ALL of the
> subsequent ones take 40-41ms. this is something i can even see when i
> manually
> set keys via telnet. the first set command returns STORED immediately,
> but after that a very small delay is visible for every set command.
> changing the length of the value
> does not  affect the 40ms for storing the value, just the get operation
> gets faster.
> have others measured the performance of the different memcached operations?
> i would be very glad to hear about your observations!
> TIA, peter
> ps: the system where the memcached daemon is running is a power5-redhat
> AS4 server. kernel=2.6.9-11.EL

More information about the memcached mailing list