Is memcached really faster than MySQL on very simple query?
pault12345 at yahoo.com
Thu Jul 13 18:37:29 UTC 2006
> howard chen wrote:
> > seems MySQL is quite efficient in handling simple
The provided test gives :
10000 / 13 = 770 hps ( hits per second )
(which does not mean that this low number is the
actual throughtput neither of mysql nor of memcached,
because he test is sequential. It 'gives the right
> 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.
XS memcached client should (maybe significantly)
improve the numbers for the case where:
1. cached values are tiny ( <2K )
2. you need to access the cache real fast from
scripting language ( == memcached access consumes a
considerable portion of your script business logic )
Seriosly, how many people use memcached with both 1
and 2 in place? It would *not* be wise to use
memcached for that case, actually.
If there is anybody on the list who really needs 1+2,
then you are welcome to email me "request for beta"
and in a few weeks I should be able to give you access
to some (future opensource) component that gives
factor of 10 better numbers for this case. As a matter
of fact, a single email would help me to convince the
management that there is some audience for this
component and open sourscing it would make sense.
> - Perrin
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
More information about the memcached