memcached "backends" (was Re: Simple questions from
jeetum at gmail.com
Thu Oct 12 05:29:51 UTC 2006
On 10/12/06, Garth Patil <garthpatil at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Tugela Cache
Tugela actually replaces the in-memory store with BDB
Ideally i would just want a transactional BDB as a backing store, and
still have the usual memcached
One extra positive that Tugela brings is that you have control on the
expiry logic. But almost always, LRU works best. So thats not too much
of a concern for me.
Did someone work on just a bdb based backend for memcached?
> >From: Andy <memcached at thwartedefforts.org>
> >To: Memcached list <memcached at lists.danga.com>
> >Subject: memcached "backends" (was Re: Simple questions from
> >Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 19:40:53 -0500
> >On Thu, 2006-10-12 at 00:47 +0200, NTPT wrote:
> > > and what about SQLITE as storage backend ?
> > > (just dumb question....)
> >Could make sense, although since memcached is just key/value pairs, and
> >is not a relational database, something along the lines of db4 might
> >make more sense and be a better functional/feature map.
> >Wasn't someone already working on something like that?
> >Andy <memcached at thwartedefforts.org>
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
More information about the memcached