Re: [Sqlgrey-users] Using memcached with SQLGrey

[Dan F. <da...@ha...>]

Dave Strickler wrote:
> I altered the source to do memcached lookups on everything except the "connect" table since that would get a lot of INSERTs that were never read again. I am seeing a 20%-40% hit on memcached, and the load on the Postgres server that handles the SQLGrey DB is down by a few LA "points".
>   
Sounds very interesting. One of my collegues have been going on and on 
about how i should be using memcached for sqlgrey, but i was unsure that 
it would do anything for us. By "LA" you mean Load Average?. And what 
how much are "points"? -0.3 or -2.0 ect.?
I dont know much about memcached, but INSERTS (and generally write 
operations) are usually pretty heavy on SQL servers, so why not include 
the "connect" table as well?
And what about the boxes running memcached. Do they take the perfomance 
hit instead of the SQL server?

Im very curious as to what i can gain in a clustered setup like mine, 
where each mailserver has its own SQL-slave, if each mailserver also has 
to run memcached.

> So, I am pleased with the memcached changes, and will tune the system a bit more and let everyone know when I have squeezed every bit of power from it. Once this is done, I will make the changes for v1.7 and get them to Lionel for anyone to use. 
>   
You mean 1.7.4 right? That would be great, since it probably will make 
it much easier for either of us to patch the CVS version.


- Dan