is bigger really better, when it comes to memcached?
marcus at synchromedia.co.uk
Thu Jun 28 09:01:45 UTC 2007
On 28 Jun 2007, at 07:55, Adam Michaels wrote:
> But when only an attribute in one of the cache objects is updated,
> only that cache object needs to be expired.
Why expire it? When you store your change, why not write the same
change to memcache so that you don't incur the fall-through to the db
on the next read?
Synchromedia Limited: Creators of http://www.smartmessages.net/
UK resellers of info at hand CRM solutions
marcus at synchromedia.co.uk | http://www.synchromedia.co.uk/
More information about the memcached