Is memcached really faster than MySQL on very simple query?
gwhalin at meetup.com
Thu Jul 13 15:02:10 UTC 2006
I never considered the benefit to memcached as being a store that is
faster than our db. The true benefit to memcached shows when you have
to scale your app beyond a single unloaded db. DB machines are
expensive. Memcache machines are cheap. DB environment can be hairy to
scale. Memcached is easy to scale.
I also see little benefit to using memcached as a query cache. We use
it as an object cache. We have objects that require several sql queries
to build, so serializing them and shoving them in cache is a huge win
Perrin Harkins wrote:
> howard chen wrote:
>> seems MySQL is quite efficient in handling simple query?
> From Perl, MySQL used to be about twice as fast as Memcached on simple
> queries. Then Brad tweaked the client code a bit, and it's about on par
> now, as you saw in your test. I suspect this is still mostly because of
> the client code -- the server is probably doing less than MySQL, so it
> should be faster, but DBI/BDB::mysql are written in C and
> Cache::Memcached is not. If that long-rumored XS client ever comes out,
> I expect it will be faster than MySQL every time.
> - Perrin
More information about the memcached