IDEA: Hierarchy of caches for high performance AND high capacity.

[Kevin Burton]

>
> > Long story short a local cache can be 4-8x faster than normal memcached.
>
> That sounds about right for a shared memory cache.  A local in-process
> cache (in Perl) would be at least 10 times faster than Memcached.  That
> still isn't fast enough to make it worth doing unless you have some very
> small hot data that you always need.


Yes......... but if the data isnt' in the local cache it won't really slow
down the system very much and for certain types of applications the speedup
might be significant.  Having benchmarks of the local cache is important to
figure out if it's contributing to a performance boost.

BigTable isn't really a distributed hash.  It provides a complex data
> access API and is heavily oriented towards redundancy and failover.
> It's a closer cousin to MySQL Cluster than to Memcached.


Sort of........ it's cell/row based mechanism so you can view it as a
map/dictionary.  There's no SQL or sorting indexes so I think you have to
build that out on top.... I've only had a chance to read about 80% of the
paper so this was an open question I had...... I'm hoping to get the
Bigtable guys to come to MySQL camp.  Need to send them an email now.



-- 
Founder/CEO Tailrank.com
Location: San Francisco, CA
AIM/YIM: sfburtonator
Skype: burtonator
Blog: feedblog.org
Cell: 415-637-8078
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.danga.com/pipermail/memcached/attachments/20061101/557cfda4/attachment.html