Brian isn't off base here. Even the sqlite people agree: http://www.sqlite.org/whentouse.html
sqlite can emulate memcached functionality in the same way that your forehead can be used to drive a nail into a board instead of a hammer. Just because they can both do the same basic functionality (store/retrieve a value) doesn't make them a substitute for each other or worth comparing. On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Brian Moon <[email protected]> wrote: > On 4/19/10 2:09 PM, David Spector wrote: >> >> Nope. SQLite supports in-memory databases. It also runs in the process >> of its parent (such as PHP), not in its own process. It is not a server >> on the Internet. > > Exactly. That is what I said. It is "local to the process using it". It is > not networked. If you want an in process cache for PHP, use APC or xcache. > They are caches. SQLite is a data store. > >> You answer so authoritatively, but I wonder if you are even familiar >> with SQLite at all. In any case, I believe my question is valid. I think >> it's also relevant to evaluating memcached. > > Oh, I am. It is slow. Dead slow with any decent sized data. I am all too > familiar with it. Works great on my iPhone though. > > If you don't want to use memcached, then don't. Memcached is not about pure > speed. It is about scalability. SQLite will not help your web app scale. If > you have 100 servers, SQLite instances all over your web servers will all > have different data. The two do not solve the same problem. > > Brian. > > > -- > Subscription settings: > http://groups.google.com/group/memcached/subscribe?hl=en > -- Eric Bergen [email protected] http://www.ebergen.net
