On Oct 8, 11:30 pm, samr <[email protected]> wrote:
> memcached is in C and hence would be faster. C doesn't necessarily mean faster. Many of them have at least an in- process offering which will probably perform like a java.util.Map with a mutex (with maybe a bit more overhead) when running in a single-node configuration. That is to say, not running a C program will be faster than running a C program. My java client ( http://code.google.com/p/spymemcached/ ) offers a java.util.Map interface to memcached which will give you an easy kv store while allowing you to scale your memory independently of your JVMs. (though, I tend to write more to the memcached interface and not the Map interface). There are trade-offs. > On feature wise the java solutions seem to be offering a lot. A piece of software with a long list of features means that the features that you care about make up a smaller percentage of the product. That doesn't necessarily speak to quality, but it at the very least makes me care less about choosing a product based on features going too far beyond my own requirements. > Please suggest what should be considered in choosing the right option. Based on the requirements you've stated, I'd suggest stating more requirements. :)
