On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 03:05:33PM +1100, Rob Mueller (fastmail) wrote: > I sat down the other day and wrote a test script to try out various > caching implementations. The script is pretty basic at the moment, I > just wanted to get an idea of the performance of different methods.
Rob, wow! This is fantastic work! I'm wondering if you could include a test on the Cache::FileBackend class. The Cache::FileCache class is not optimized for the particular type of gets and sets that you were testing for. In fact, each of those requests will still need to go through the process of checking for object expiration, which may add the overhead that you observe in the benchmark. Not that I'm expecting Cache::FileBackend to do significantly better -- it still does name hashing, directory hashing, taint checking, cloning of objects, etc. But I am curious to see what difference it makes. You could try Cache::SharedMemoryBackend as well. In general the Cache::* modules were designed for clarity and ease of use in mind. For example, the modules tend to require absolutely no set-up work on the end user's part and try to be as fail-safe as possible. Thus there is run-time overhead involved. That said, I'm certainly not against performance. :) These benchmarks are going to be tremendously useful in identifying bottlenecks. However, I won't be able to optimize for these particular benchmarks, as Cache::Cache is designed to do something different than straight gets and sets. Again, thank you, Rob. This is great, -DeWitt
