Hi:
I've recently started on a project that is utilizing memcached to
buffer lists of 'long's that represent key values for larger more
detailed objects to load if needed. This list will have a maximum of
10,000 items.
ex:
List of longs:
key : actList value : maximum 10,000 longs sorted
No, this is not supported in memcached.
Brian.
http://brian.moonspot.net/
On 1/19/10 8:11 AM, jim wrote:
Hi:
I've recently started on a project that is utilizing memcached to
buffer lists of 'long's that represent key values for larger more
detailed objects to load if needed. This
Can you always invalidate memcached entry when a new item is inserted into
the list? This way you can assume that what's in memcached is always good.
Boris
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 9:11 AM, jim jim.basi...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi:
I've recently started on a project that is utilizing memcached to
It's not a matter of memcached being bad, it's a matter of pulling
only X items off the big list in order to perform more efficiently.
Sometimes we want the entire list .. but also sometimes we just want
to look at the last 10 and see if there are new items vs. pulling the
entire list across the
How're you serializing the list?
In cases where I've had to work with that, we ensure the value is a flat
list of packed numerics, and run no serialization on them. Then you have
the overhead of a network fetch, but testing values within the list is
nearly free.
-Dormando
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010,
Ideally since this is a byte[] we would just get the X # of bytes that
make up the new entries. So we would fetch only the new entries.
Since this is an array of longs we are storing, this should be pretty
easy to ascertain the right size to grab.
Now don't get me wrong, other times we use the
That's pretty much exactly what we do in some cases.
prepend/append packed bytes so the list is in order. Then we pull the data
and read as much as we need without touching serialization.
If the overhead is a big deal you could fiddle with it a bit. Store 100 or
1,000 items per list and use
Did you use a custom serialization scheme? Or do you mean the binary
serializer? Because at some point you HAVE to serialize something to
a byte[], right? Did you prepend data at all? I don't see many
people talking about utilizing the prepend/append methods within the
protocol, I'm also
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:51 AM, mark markki...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/12/9 Steve Chu stv...@gmail.com:
* a new option(-R) is added to remove useless transaction log automatically.
is this option also available in memcachedb? if not can you make it available?
yes, memcachedb has the similar
