Updates:
Status: WontFix
Comment #1 on issue 191 by dsalli...@gmail.com: Implementation of CHECK
command for memcached
http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=191
This seems redundant to the TOUCH command, but in a slightly more confusing
way in that it seems to have
Hi.
How could this be put to use? i.e. when is knowing that
something exists at some point in an ephemeral store useful to an
application?
This command provides support for lazy read operation. You can read
the value of the key only when is really necessary.
For example:
1. I am storing some
Is it also your intention to have CHECK with an expiration act as a sort of
touch command?
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Oleg Romanenko romanenko.o...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi.
How could this be put to use? i.e. when is knowing that
something exists at some point in an ephemeral store useful
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Oleg Romanenko
romanenko.o...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi.
How could this be put to use? i.e. when is knowing that
something exists at some point in an ephemeral store useful to an
application?
This command provides support for lazy read operation. You can read
the
On 3/18/2011 3:12 PM, Oleg Romanenko wrote:
Hi.
How could this be put to use? i.e. when is knowing that
something exists at some point in an ephemeral store useful to an
application?
This command provides support for lazy read operation. You can read
the value of the key only when is really
On 3/18/2011 4:03 PM, Roberto Spadim wrote:
check have a low network traffic, i think it´s a nice command
Yes, and I don't see why it would be a problem to implement. I just
don't see the point when by the time you get the answer it might not be
true, and if you try to apply an new expire
On 18. mars 2011, at 13.41, Adam Lee wrote:
Is it also your intention to have CHECK with an expiration act as a sort of
touch command?
I pushed a binary TOUCH command a while back for the upcoming engine branch (in
addition to a get and touch). The touch command is used to update the
hummm i think it´s a cache feature...
for example, if a key of cache is
key_1 , key_1_1, hey_1_2 , key_1_3, key_1_
if we check key_1 and it return not exists, we don´t need to check key_1_1,2,3,4
it´s a feature, some cache problems could get improvement with it.
i think it´s very good =)
think
there´s a problem (i think) that some noSQL database use memcache
protocol, and they want to libmemcache be in sync with these features
maybe we should change some things
memcached (repcache) cache daemon
libmemcache (tcp/udp protocol)
nosql daemon (memcachedb, membase, others..)
just a idea...
yeah it´s just a idea, cache values not get will get from session db for example
the point here is a scenario with cache server with loaded (network or
low memory)
it sound nice to tweak some code with this 'check' feature. i don´t
know if will have a performace boost, just testing...
2011/3/18
Status: New
Owner:
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium
New issue 191 by romanenko.oleg: Implementation of CHECK command for
memcached
http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=191
Hello.
I've been using memcached for storing data with a short lifetime and I
found
On Mar 15, 9:28 am, Oleg Romanenko romanenko.o...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello.
I've been using memcached for storing data with a short lifetime and I
found that the use of the add command to test the existence of a key
requires additional expenses, because if the key does not exist
already
12 matches
Mail list logo
