Re^3: learning memcached

Or, am I reading the results wrong?

You're not reading the results wrong, I obviously missed the count :)

Another (insert better word here) "flaw" , is your sql query is too simple :) The way I understand memcached, you get benefit if you cache data which is expensive to calculate

Comment on Re^3: learning memcached

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: learning memcached by punkish (Priest) on May 21, 2011 at 03:10 UTC
> Another (insert better word here) "flaw" , is your sql query is too simple :) > The way I understand memcached, you get benefit if you cache data which is > expensive to calculate I don't see why that should matter. Sure, on a more complicated and slow query, retrieving an already calculated result will be faster. However, retrieving even the simplest of results from memory should be faster than opening a file on disk, preparing a db handle, querying, and then returning the result. At worst, it should be about the same, not 30% worse! when small people start casting long shadows, it is time to go to bed	[reply]
Re^5: learning memcached by Anonymous Monk on May 21, 2011 at 03:18 UTC
However, retrieving even the simplest of results from memory should be faster than opening a file on disk, preparing a db handle, querying, and then returning the result. I don't think SQLite uses sockets. memcached does use socket. That might explain the difference, maybe benchmark against a database which uses sockets. Or maybe opening "foo.txt" is skewing the results (unlikely, but it could happen) At worst, it should be about the same, not 30% worse I literally don't know about that, you might wish to ask the mailing list (amusing story about that).	[reply]