Is memcached really faster than MySQL on very simple query?

[howard chen]

On 7/13/06, Ivan Krstic <krstic at solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> Please use Reply-to-All so your replies get copied to the list.
>
> howard chen wrote:
> > i also have thought that, but *SHOW STATUS return *"Qcache_hits = 0",
> > seems query cache was not enabled by mysql default installation? ( on
> > FC5, yum install mysql-server, nothing changed)
> >
> > i suspect it is related to epoll? but how to verify this?
>
> The query cache has nothing to do with epoll.


i mean if epoll in my FC5 didn't work, but how to verify for this?

It wouldn't be terribly surprising to see mysql outperform memcached on
> a query this simple, but that doesn't reduce memcached's usefulness in
> the slightest. I'd also check to make sure you had persistent
> connections enabled in your perl script (I don't use the perl client, so
> I'm not sure what the defaults are like).


during the loop, the connection to mysql is persistent, memcache also
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.danga.com/pipermail/memcached/attachments/20060713/98d529b8/attachment.htm