I do like caching. And you often don't need to cache for very long anyway to get significant benefits. T.
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Paul Glavich <subscripti...@theglavs.com> wrote: > Cache invalidation can be hard in tight race conditions and a few others. > There are many instances where it can be very easy based on use cases and > data needs. I have used it to great effect for many years. > > > > Like you mentioned, do not write off because it can be hard. Kinda like > designing and implementing solutions J > > > > Note: I have never used ORM caching functionlity and probably never will. > > > > - Glav > > > > *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-bounces@ > ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf Of *Greg Keogh > *Sent:* Monday, 19 September 2016 10:38 AM > *To:* ozDotNet <ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com> > *Subject:* Re: Entity Framework - the lay of the land > > > > I had an argument internally that caching was good, with the alternate > side saying that “cache invalidation” was hard so they never use it. > > > > I think it is "hard" but don't write it off completely. Search for "second > level cache" and you'll see it's not that trivial to use properly. Some > ORMs have it as an optional feature. You've got to consider what to cache, > eviction or expiry policy, concurrency, capacity, etc. I implemented simple > caching in a server app a long time ago, then about year later I put > performance counters into the code and discovered that in live use the > cache was usually going empty before it was accessed, so it was mostly > ineffective. Luckily I could tweak it into working. So caching is great, > but be careful -- *GK* >
