Memcached Vs Local LRU Cache

Artur Bergman abergman at
Tue Sep 26 14:16:19 UTC 2006

That depends entirely on what you are doing.

Another approach is to use both memcache and local cache, so within a  
transaction for example (loose use of the term transaction) you use  
in memory but for longer living things you use memcache.


On Sep 26, 2006, at 7:14 AM, anand wrote:

> To make my point clear, currently I end up replicating the cache.  
> Using memcached will help me curb over this problem. But the  
> question is that would using memcached affect the performance  
> considerably or should I rather use the resident cache and end up  
> sacrificing memory.
> On 9/26/06, Ivan Krstić <krstic at> wrote:
> anand wrote:
> > LRU: 10,000 reads averages to about 16 ms that is 0.0016 ms per read
> > Memcached: 10,000 reads averages to about 2837 ms that is 0.28 ms  
> per read
> This comparison doesn't make even a hint of sense. If an in-program  
> cache is adequate for your use case, don't look at memcached.
> If you need your resident cache set to be (much) larger than the  
> amount
> of RAM in your machine, or you need machine redundancy, or you need to
> distribute rather than replicate the cache, then memcached is the  
> right
> answer.
> --
> Ivan Krstić <krstic at> | GPG: 0x147C722D

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the memcached mailing list