On Thu, 2009-09-24 at 02:54 -0700, Michel Thadeu Sabchuk wrote: > Wouldn't it be better to cache on the RAM? This way you won't need > even these queries... > > I'm not a cache specialist, let me know if I miss something ;)
Yes it would be better, if you can afford it. The website runs in single a Xen VM with 1 GB of memory that's shared by both Apache2+mod_wsgi and MySql. While at the MySql Conference I heard a couple of folks saying that they prefer MySql for caching ... including Chris Kasten from eBay, well he said they are using the Memory storage engine. The problem with a RDBMS come from 2 sources ... the queries can take a long time to process, occupying resources of other connections, and you can't shard a relational structure easily. This doesn't happen for a simple data-structure (key-value), where you're making simple requests (like fetching a single row with a const condition based on a primary/unique index) ... as is the case for a cache_table. You can shard this easily too, and you get for free multi-get, and LIKE comparisons that can help invalidate only the relevant keys. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
