Is memcached really faster than MySQL on very simple query?

[Paul T]

Hey, using SWIG one should be able to produce an XS
memcahed binding for Perl sufficient for benchmarking
- in a day I guess.

I suspect that it had not been done because nobody
really cares about that case.

Rgds.Paul.

PS. Your question is legitimate, but it is only one
legitimate question addressing a (large) set of
combinations. 

For example, centralized memcached (facebook) vs
distributed (original danga). Scripting client vs C
client. Simple SQL queries vs slow SQL queries e t.c. 

The pipeline has so many moving parts that it would
take more than just one question to address entire
range of possible combinations. 

PPS. I am not arguing that boosting some part of the
pipeline ignoring the rest of the pipeline is OK and
makes sense.

However, usually, boosting the architecture as a whole
gives (much) better results.

--- Perrin Harkins <perrin at elem.com> wrote:

> 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.)
> 
> - Perrin
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com