Another Delete Question...

dormando dormando at
Wed Jun 25 06:00:14 UTC 2008

I'm actually a bit curious on this myself, and believe some of the
development work going on has removed this feature, since it is pretty

We were discussing it in irc and couldn't find a usage pattern that
isn't better off using 'add' with a low timeout. The way it's
implemented is a dynamic array loop thing, which isn't exactly ideal

So, anyone using it? I hope you're listening and speak up soon :) We'll
make a lot more noise as this feature is .. presently slated for removal
I guess.


Wayne Hineman wrote:
> Hi,
> As a newbie to memcached, I've been reading carefully the protocol
> document and have a question about the optional time value on the
> 'delete' command. The document describes very well how it works;
> my question is what is the use case for this function? Is it used
> widely? I can kind of understand a desire to prevent certain keys
> from being stored, but the 'set' command overrides this behavior.
> Is it expected that new keys are always 'add'ed and existing keys
> always 'replace'd? I might expect that the opposite is true: that
> 'set' is used more frequently than add/replace, thus making the
> optional time on 'delete' moot. So what's the thought behind this
> feature?
> Thanks!
> Wayne

More information about the memcached mailing list