Chris wrote:
>> "Happening at the same time; simultaneous."
>>
>>> 100 people come to your website - that's still going to be 100
>>> connections to the database, regardless of where the results come
>>> from.
>>
>> But if that is one every hour for a hundred hours, your max
>> concurrency is 1.
Per Jessen wrote:
Chris wrote:
Err yes - a query replied to out of cache will take less time to
complete, therefore the connection will be given up faster, therefore
less _concurrent_ connections.
I guess my idea of concurrency is different to yours.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/concurrent
Chris wrote:
>> Err yes - a query replied to out of cache will take less time to
>> complete, therefore the connection will be given up faster, therefore
>> less _concurrent_ connections.
>
> I guess my idea of concurrency is different to yours.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/concurrent
"Happeni
The number of connections is presumably only important if we speak
about the number of concurrent connections. If each query can be
dealt with faster due to caching, the number of concurrent
connections should drop.
Err no - it still has to connect to the database (thus use a
connection slot)
Chris wrote:
[snip]
> will not hit the first cache because the fields are different.
> http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/4.1/en/query-cache-how.html
All very true, but when a busy website with 100 hits/interval has 25
duplicate queries, that 24% saved per interval. My only point was -
when you're
Per Jessen wrote:
Stut wrote:
Indeed, but only if you're making a lot of repetitive queries to the
database.
Which is typically what a busy website does :-)
The query cache only works if you give it exactly the same query.
That is:
select blah from table where id=1;
if it changes to
se
Stut wrote:
> Indeed, but only if you're making a lot of repetitive queries to the
> database.
Which is typically what a busy website does :-)
> However, since the OP wants to reduce the number of
> connections to the database, query caching may reduce the time each
> connection is held for it
Per Jessen wrote:
Stut wrote:
Stefano Esposito wrote:
i'm in need to limit the numbers of conection to the database,
whithout loose of functionality. There is a general strategy to
achieve this?
1) Caching
2) Caching
3) Caching
And if all that fails...
4) Caching
And mysqls query cache do
Stut wrote:
> Stefano Esposito wrote:
>> i'm in need to limit the numbers of conection to the database,
>> whithout loose of functionality. There is a general strategy to
>> achieve this?
>
> 1) Caching
> 2) Caching
> 3) Caching
>
> And if all that fails...
>
> 4) Caching
And mysqls query cach
Stefano Esposito wrote:
i'm in need to limit the numbers of conection to the database, whithout loose
of functionality.
There is a general strategy to achieve this?
1) Caching
2) Caching
3) Caching
And if all that fails...
4) Caching
Why do you need to reduce database connections? Is the si
Hi all,
i'm in need to limit the numbers of conection to the database, whithout loose
of functionality.
There is a general strategy to achieve this?
--
Stefano Esposito
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f
Sponsor:
Insoddisfatto del tuo lavoro? Sco
11 matches
Mail list logo
