On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 12:21 +0000, Simon Gray wrote: > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Aaron Stone > > >> Nope, you can't make that assumption. The reason is that IMAP > >> supports multiple simultaneous writers. If the mailbox changes out > >> from underneath you then you need to realize that and recompute > >> things. Right now we're recomputing things every time so this hasn't > >> been an issue. > > >Global variables, as I alluded to, and shared memory, as you mentioned, > >do not replicate. It's entirely possible that the database changed not > >just under the noses of the processes on this machine, but on other > >machines, too! > > Memcached will replicate over multiple machines, albeit separately from > any existing database replication systems. May be worth a look, hitting > the memory cache will be far faster than hitting the database numerous > times.
True, but we're already invested in the database architecture, so we can leverage it for modest to significant gains without much work. If the cache table is set up as a simple dictionary, then its only difference from memcached will be that it's a database, not memcached ;-) Aaron
