Using memcached with MySQL Cluster vs. stand-alone MySQL
brad at danga.com
Wed Sep 6 03:02:00 UTC 2006
Sounds like you should use MySQL Cluster.
You could get an even bigger win using the NDB API directly if you want to
save CPU, bypassing the SQL layer on both sides.
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006, EKC wrote:
> I am planning on moving my MySQL-Memcached webapp to a MySQL Cluster
> (5.0). Since MySQL Cluster maintains the entire database in main
> memory (and checkpoints commits to disk), I am starting to wonder
> whether or not I still need memcached.
> What are the advantages to using memcached with MySQL Cluster vs. a
> stand-alone MySQL Cluster database?
> I have read that MySQL Cluster 5.1 now supports storing non-indexed
> data on disk. However, I am not using that feature; my entire MySQL
> Cluster database will be in main memory across 12 data nodes (each on
> a separate machine).
> Thanks in advance!
More information about the memcached