2014-05-12 18:33 GMT-03:00 Ezekiel Victor <[email protected]>: > A coworker and I were having a discussion about whether to use MySQL or > memcached for a key-value store. >
if you want a key-value store, you can't use memcached, memcached is a cache, a store(database) should be used in this case, check handler socket (mariadb), memcached+innodb/memcached+ndb (mysql), or other key-value storage, redis, and others... > My view is that memcached is designed to be exactly that, > that = cache, right? > and if we desire persistence we can use Membase. He alleged that memcached > lacks read/write consistency, such that you can end up reading a half-value > if you were to read in the middle of a write. Is this true? > well you should ask to membase guys > I have used memcached under many thousands of reads/writes per second on a > high traffic site and never ran into any such problem. > > very good me too :) -- Roberto Spadim -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "memcached" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
