Basically whatever you guys make standard I'll put into the branch.
The pget and pdelete were just the simplest thing I could come up with
that would do the job. What do you think?
The rget command I copied from memcachedb. The only thing I don't like
about it is that I think the end key should be optional so that you
don't have to specify a maximal key if you want to iterate through the
On Apr 13, 9:44 pm, Brian Aker <br...@tangent.org
> Dustin and I were talking about adding this sort of command as an
> option to the protocol description for Memcached. If we could come up
> with a standard, I would love to add it to libmemcached.
> On Apr 13, 2009, at 9:26 PM, Mike Panchenko wrote:
> > Interesting... have you tested it with multiple clients? Do you
> > think there's any reason to believe that more clients would cause
> > degradation?
> > Have you considered making this an option? I'm assuming the most
> > common response to this will be "Memcached works very well for what
> > it was designed. Don't mess with that."
> > Mike.
> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Josh Dybnis <jdyb...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> > memcached-prefix is an experimental fork off of the memcached 1.3
> > development branch. It adds commands pget and pdelete that operate on
> > ranges of keys having a common prefix. The new commands can be used as
> > a simple namespace mechanism. It also adds a memcachedb compatible
> > rget command.
> > Performance is very close to the standard memcached (see the
> > benchmarks on the project page). Space usage is also roughly
> > unchanged.
> > Project page:http://jdybnis.github.com/memcached/
> Brian "Krow" Aker, brian at tangent.org
> Seattle, Washingtonhttp://krow.net/