Re^4: learning memcached

> 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

Comment on Re^4: learning memcached

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
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]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

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]