Is memcached really faster than MySQL on very simple query?
perrin at elem.com
Thu Jul 13 18:51:17 UTC 2006
On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 11:37 -0700, Paul T wrote:
> 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.
Isn't that sort of a chicken/egg problem? If you are profiling your
code, you would probably have chosen not to use memcached for that case.
A better question might be if there are people out there who need to
speed up some simple database queries, but can't with the current
memcached client. (I'm not in that camp, just pointing it out.)
More information about the memcached