> IPC::ShareLite freezes/thaws the whole data structure, rather than just the > hash element being accessed, IIRC, so is probably going to have extremely > poor scaling characteristics. Worth adding to check, of course.
No, it's probably not worth it. It would be worth adding IPC::Shareable though, because people never believe me when I tell them to use something else. Having some numbers would help. > Another interesting option is mapping a MySQL table data structure directly > to the data structure being stored. That could be useful as part of a comparison for storing non-complex data, i.e. a single scalar value. > I'm not sure what a 'standard table' in MySQL is any more... Berkeley, > MyISAM, ISAM... I guess we can try all these, but that's benchmarking the DB > rather than the caching scheme, and we're not about to try every DB server > we can find! No, of course not. It may be that the performance characteristics of these table types are well known already and I just don't follow the MySQL scene well enough to know. I thought maybe the default tables type (MyISAM?) which doesn't support transactions would have better speed for dirt simple storage like this. - Perrin
