Re: 4 csets were pushed to core/stable: Merge [email protected]:/var/bk/xaraya...

In article <[email protected]>, mikespub-111RdWWlOxkOkXtL6OYfHgC/[email protected] 
(Michel Dalle) wrote:
>...    
>      html/includes/caching/storage/memcached.php
>        1.9 05/02/02 01:40:22 [email protected] +38 -11
>        cache storage live
>    
>      html/includes/caching/storage/filesystem.php
>        1.9 05/02/02 01:40:22 [email protected] +50 -12
>        cache storage live
>    
>      html/includes/caching/storage/database.php
>        1.9 05/02/02 01:40:22 [email protected] +60 -13
>        cache storage live
>...
Those are the storage options you have to cache stuff now. Note that
memcached handles its own expiration, so you can't really flush things
by cachekey there (except on an all-or-nothing or individual basis).
So cache entries will expire on their own regardless of any intermediate
item updates etc. there - a limitation compared to the other two options.

I wouldn't recommend using database or memcached in production yet
- but have fun with them on test sites :-)

Performance-wise, I haven't seen any major differences between the 3
(about 1.5%), but then I didn't have Turck mmcache enabled so core loading
still took most of the processing regardless of how the pages were cached.
It'd be nice if someone could get some better comparisons further down
the road...

Note: query caching is still handled by ADODB and uses files, while
session-less caching will remain in files as well (no core or database)
- although it could probably use memcached later on too.

Mike.