Well, I mean memcached is awesome but, to be fair, it's not DB-centric
and you have to do a bit of work to hook it up to your application.
MEMORY tables are a nice middle road between a full-blown memcached
setup and not using anything. Besides, you can join stuff together
with a MEMORY table.
For the Facebooks, Diggs, Craigslists, etc. of the world, yes, you
would want to use memcached. But for the smaller guys that don't need
to hit the gas that hard that soon, the MEMORY engine has some good
benefits.
I deal with a lot of customers who don't even know what memcached is
and so, for them, MEMORY can provide some benefits that they otherwise
didn't have.
Is memcached better? Well, in many cases hell yeah, but it's not the
only tool nor is it always going to be the right tool.
*shrug*
Tim S.
On Apr 27, 2009, at 3:41 PM, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
This doesn't directly answer the question, but here's my 2 cents
from a few
high-volume MySQL/Web shops on the memory engine...
The decision tree is often like this:
If you need the data to persist, put it in MySQL (probably InnoDB) and
replicate it.
If you need FAST access, put it in memcached.
If you need FAST access and persistence, use MySQL behind
memcached. You
probably didn't need to do SQL queries anyway.
Now I know that's an over-simplification, but it's something I've
seen time
and again.
If the world suddenly had lots of 128GB servers, and a memory engine
that
scaled *really well* on multi-core, and could handle key lookups and
range
scans, *and* (this is the kicker) had an on-disk journal or some
sort of
built-in persistence... that might be different.
It's interesting that a couple of the new appliance vendors at the
MySQL
Conference used the same basic hardware to build BOTH memcached and
MySQL/InnoDB appliances.
Makes you wonder what'd happen if drizzle had a memcached protocol
plugin
and was running on a box with SSD storage, etc... :-)
Jeremy
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Brian Aker <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi!
Has anyone ever done any sort of benchmarks on the B-tree indexes
on the
Memory engine? Are people using them or are they just sticking to the
default HASH indexes?
Two reasons I am asking:
1) It would be simple to improve performance for the HEAP indexes,
but the
B-tree are much more problematic.
2) Are there any outstanding users of this feature? Or is this
untested at
large?
We badly need a new memory engine, it is high on my list. We can
get a bit
more out of the current design but it would mean dropping
functionality/etc.
Cheers,
-Brian
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss<https://launchpad.net/%7Edrizzle-discuss
>
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss<https://launchpad.net/%7Edrizzle-discuss
>
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
