Hi Toru! This is very cool, and very much what I had in mind with the new protocol interface instead of wedging this in via a UDF or some other means. There is a branch that should hit trunk in the next week or so that will make this even easier, providing better abstraction around the listening interface and the client (which is the new name for "protocol").
I'm going to be writing a detailed blog up soon about how to write your own listen and client interfaces to extend Drizzle. -Eric On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 03:39:21PM +0900, Toru Maesaka wrote: > Hi Drizzlers! > > So I came across this entry by a friend of mine who added memcached > protocol support to MySQL via UDF. > > - http://developer.cybozu.co.jp/kazuho/2009/08/mycached-memcac.html > > >From his findings, he discovered that the protocol difference can be > up to 2x faster in terms of throughput. > > I remember Eric talking about making the protocol component modular in > libdrizzle so this entry could be a good justification to actually > research into that field. I suspect that drizzle would benefit more > than MySQL since the protocol handler would be closer to the database > kernel than negotiating it via UDF (though I can't say for sure > because I don't know the exact overhead involved in UDF). > > Cheers, > Toru > > _______________________________________________ > 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
