Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: memcached and PostgreSQL

From: Michael Adler <adler(at)pobox(dot)com>
To: Darcy Buskermolen <darcy(at)wavefire(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: memcached and PostgreSQL
Date: 2004-11-17 19:51:58
Message-ID: 20041117195158.GA18831@pobox.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 09:13:09AM -0800, Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
> On November 16, 2004 08:00 pm, Michael Adler wrote:
> > http://pugs.postgresql.org/sfpug/archives/000021.html
> >
> > I noticed that some of you left coasters were talking about memcached
> > and pgsql. I'm curious to know what was discussed.
> 
> Have a look at the pdf presentation found on the following site:
> 
> http://people.freebsd.org/~seanc/pgmemcache/

Thanks for that.

That presentation was rather broad and the API seems rather general
purpose, but I wonder why you would really want access the cache by
way of the DB? If one major point of memcache is to allocate RAM to a
low-overhead server instead of to the RDBMS's disk cache, why would
you add the overhead of the RDBMS to the process?  (this is a bit of
straw man, but just trying to flesh-out the pros and cons)

Still, it seems like a convenient way to maintain cache coherency,
assuming that your application doesn't already have a clean way to do
that.

(just my uninformed opinion, though...)

-Mike

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2004-11-17 21:02:59
Subject: Re: Analyzer is clueless
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2004-11-17 19:14:43
Subject: Re: Analyzer is clueless

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group