Am 15.07.2013 19:35, schrieb Egoitz Aurrekoetxea: > On 15/07/13 17:27, Reindl Harald wrote: >>> I'm not trying to pick on you, Reindl. Your cache may be doing >>> splendidly well. I just didn't want anyone else to see your >>> efficiency rating and derive the wrong formula on their own >> >> i would say my caches are working perfectly (not only the mysql >> cache, also opcache etc.) since whe have generate times down to >> 0.006 seconds for a typical CMS page here which runs in more than >> 200 installations on the main machine, at high load mysqld is >> never the problem >> >> without the query cache the overall performance drops by 30-40% >> > The query cache hit rate is near 90%.... so I assume it's doing all > properly... now I'm using 1GB as cache.... but... I will do some > tries... till I see some significant behavior either due to success or > failure... I was basically wondering what did you though about > performance penalty due to the mysql cache... just that... > > Thank you very much then....
well, there are some web-apps here where i tried hours of optimize and i was not able to set keys on all joind tables in a way to make them really fast where the first query after a restart takes some sconds which is deadly in regular operations the data is not changed often and after that the importer does a list of the most expensive queries to warm up that's one application from 250 with a summary of 6000 tables on the machine - whatever i would optimize here it would all have positive impact here while negative on a different piece, so in summary the query cache brings a lot of benefit in *this* environment i think this is one of the things which must everybody test in his environment and weigt positive / negative impact
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
