2009/12/11 Joseph Bowman <[email protected]>: > Before I start working on something like this, I need to ask, is it even > necessary? Would it really provide a performance increase worth the added > complexity and dependence on things like memcached? I recall someone at Digg > gave a presentation where they found that Cassandra was fast even without > implementing a memcached layer. Does anyone on the list have any > suggestions/comments about this idea?
It seems cassandra is pretty fast when reading a small number of columns, but can be slow for a large number. Yet, you can cache at the cassandra level.. If you have a spare gigabyte of ram to host a memcached instance, you can use it for it :) FWIW, in our current application with 0.4 we implemented in-cassandra caching, whereas a query that reads many thousands of columns and takes some time is cached in a separate entry QueryCache[q]=serializedResult and we flush it on update. I don't see why that cant be done by cassandra itself (maybe it's already done in 0.5) although we will probably keep it all the same: denormalizing denormalized stuff is fun. -- blog en: http://www.riffraff.info blog it: http://riffraff.blogsome.com
