Hi Anders, In my experience with standard RMDBS, memcache is more useful for caching arbitrary data and less useful for caching model objects. If you have a really tuned database layer a lot of your queries will already be resident in the database's cache, and memcache provides only a modest efficiency gain. With GAE that seems to be less true - in one of my apps, caching my User model reduced response time by about 150ms.
However, where I have found memcache most valuable is in caching more arbitrary data constructs. Caching fragments of your rendered HTML, for instance, can be really effective. Or perhaps there's a big chunk of JSON that is often requested, but really only needs to be updated once a minute. Removing the memcache API would be really really unfortunate. re: whether or not you should implement it, I would say NO. until you have a whole whack of users, concentrate on more important things. Ben On Nov 17, 12:26 am, Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, removing Memcache from the GAE API is probably not a good idea. > There must have been some reason why it was added. > > What I'm skeptic about is if it will be a good idea for me to use it > or if I will only be doing something unnecessary or even worse, > shooting myself in the foot if the Memcache does not scale well and if > my site will start to get massive traffic (my application still has > very low traffic but I want to be prepared for the eventuality of an > exponential traffic increase :-). > > On Nov 17, 9:13 am, Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I don't know if this means that each server instance has its own > > > Memcache or that all the instances access a single Memcache. > > > All instances access the "same" memcache - although this may be > > distributed behind the scenes, I don't know about that. > > > I agree with you that it would be elegant to have automatic caching, > > but that would impose some limitations - currently you can memcache > > anything (including complex objects), but you can only store limited > > data types in the datastore; and you can do (limited) querys on the > > datastore but not on memcache. > > > Ideally we'd have a transparently cached queryable object store to > > replace the datastore and memcache, but I guess this would be a > > significant amount of development. Maybe Google should hire the Zope > > guys to build it. > > > Cheers! > > Greg. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
