It would, but depending on the extent of that latency it might be a reasonable trade off for reliability. I've an app that could definitely tolerate some % of memcache saves being higher latency if it guaranteed I didn't lose data.
The option of a silent background put() to the datastore upon eviction also wouldn't necessarily incur extra latency for your memcache save, but would instead 'just' cost you cpu_ms for those ds puts (i'm sure those DS puts could be asynchronous and your memcache operation could return without waiting for them to finish). Again, I don't know if it's practical on the backend, feasible to implement. But I believe other database systems offer that kind of write-behind cache. On Apr 15, 3:45 pm, Wooble <geoffsp...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 15, 9:48 am, peterk <peter.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > It'd be great if memcache could throw a warning or error upon a put to > > memcache, if that put will cause an eviction of another value, and ask > > you to retry your put with a token to confirm you're OK with the > > eviction. > > It's a cache. That would add annoying latency. -- 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-appeng...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.
