> On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 06:37:01AM -0400, Mark Woodward wrote:
>> While we all know session data is, at best, ephemeral, people still want
>> some sort of persistence, thus, you need a database. For mcache I have a
>> couple plugins that have a wide range of opitions, from read/write at
>> startup and shut down, to full write through cache to a database.
>> In general, my clients don't want this, they want the database to store
>> their data. When you try to explain to them that a database may not be
>> right place to store this data, they ask why, sadly they have little
>> of understanding the nuances and remain unconvinced.
> Have you done any benchmarking between a site using mcache and one not?
> I'll bet there's a huge difference, which translates into hardware $$.
> That's something managers can understand.
Last benchmark I did was on a pure data level, a couple years ago,
PostgreSQL could handle about 800 session transactions a second, but
degraded over time, MCache was up about 7500 session transactions a second
and held steady. I should dig up that code and make it available on my
I have a couple users that tell me that their sites couldn't work without
it, not even with MySQL.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Thomas Hallgren||Date: 2006-06-27 13:55:06|
|Subject: refcount leak warnings|
|Previous:||From: Mark Woodward||Date: 2006-06-27 12:48:19|
|Subject: Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC|