Is memcached really faster than MySQL on very simple query?
perrin at elem.com
Thu Jul 13 18:40:23 UTC 2006
On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 11:02 -0400, Greg Whalin wrote:
> 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.
It's not so hard to replicate MySQL for read-only queries across
multiple machines. Memcached should handle concurrency better though,
since it doesn't need to dedicate a thread to each connection.
> 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
> for us.
Caching at a higher level is a bigger win, but query caching will
definitely help some systems.
More information about the memcached