Deletes Are Driving Me Crazy

[Greg Whalin]

This sounds like something already brought up in the list some time back.

http://lists.danga.com/pipermail/memcached/2004-July/thread.html

Check for subj: "Add fails after delete"

Seems it was supposed to have been fixed?

gw

Matthew Glubb wrote:
> Okay, I guess I can expand a little :)
> 
> You are right to guess that I am using memcache as a queue of sorts.  
> It's network related.
> 
> Each client has a maximum of N key/value pairs in the memcache.  
> Multiple, concurrent requests may be arriving from the same client.  
> Every client uses the same key prefix for all of there keys ie.  
> prefix_[0 to N-1]. If a client tries to overwrite one of those key/ 
> value pairs once they have been assigned the request is denied, hence  
> the requirement for using add rather than set. If a client session  
> ends, all N key/value pairs should be deleted. If the same client  then 
> starts another session they should be able to recreate up to N  
> key/value pairs using the same key names but containing different  values.
> 
> I have multiple red hat boxes running lighttpd and load-balanced fast- 
> cgi php 5.0.5 modules with John's mcache extension 1.2.0 beta10  
> compiled against libmemcache-1.4.0.b9. Memcached is version 1.1.12.
> 
> Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It seems to me that deleted  
> keys are not always deleted 'straightaway'.
> 
> Matt
> 
> On 11 Jan 2006, at 17:24, Jeff Rodenburg wrote:
> 
>> On 1/11/06, Matthew Glubb <matt at zgroupplc.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I simply wish to be able to delete a key that has a zero expiry
>>> period and then immediately be able to add a key of the same name.
>>> The reason that I cannot use set is because if it already exists in
>>> the cache I do not want to replace the value.
>>>
>>
>> I have a somewhat similar requirement, but I'm curious about this  
>> specific
>> approach.  It sounds as if an object may go into the cache with a  
>> given key,
>> but in some scenarios if that key is already in use, that object  
>> would use a
>> different key in the cache.  Is that accurate?
>>
>> This sound as if you might be using the cache as a queue or  something to
>> delineate prioritization or ordering.
>>
>> I know this doesn't resolve the particular add/delete/add scenario,  
>> but I'm
>> curious about the requirements side.
>>
>> cheers,
>> j
> 
> 
> 
> 
> m a t t h e w   g l u b b
> 
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Z Group PLC
> 
> Tel: +44 (0) 8700 111 173
> Fax: +44 (0) 8707 051 393
> Txt: +44 (0) 7800 140 877
> Web: <http://www.zgroupplc.com/>
> 
> PLEASE NOTE ZGROUP IS NOT LIABLE  FOR ANY DAMAGES,  MALFUNCTION, OR LOSS
> OF DATA,  CAUSED AS A RESULT OF FOLLOWING  ANY  ADVICE  ENCLOSED IN THIS
> EMAIL. ANY CHANGES SHOULD BE CARRIED OUT AT YOUR OWN RISK.
> 
> This  email  and  any  files  transmitted  with it are  confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
> addressed.  The opinions  expressed in this mail are those of the author
> and do not necessarily  represent the views of the company.  If you have
> received this email in error please notify <service at zgroupplc.com>
> 
> 
>