Re: Digest for nessdb@googlegroups.com - 1 Message in 1 Topic

[lijin liu]

IMO, removing cache is not a good idea.

1 storage engine is not only a storage module. It should supply the best function about put/get data, no matter is disk io or memory cache

2 external cache looks like "flexible" but there is much overhead about that. Sometimes the overhead is unacceptable.

For example,  There is no record level cache for MySQL so we have to use external cache. This is just because there is no internal record cache but not because it is unnecessary . 

The extremely give us some shortcomings such as more complex architecture and consistence problem.

在 2012-6-18，8:58，"nes...@googlegroups.com" <nes...@googlegroups.com> 写道：

  Today's Topic Summary

Group: http://groups.google.com/group/nessdb/topics

• Remove LLRU from storage engine [1 Update]

 Remove LLRU from storage engine

BohuTANG <overred....@gmail.com> Jun 16 07:55PM -0700  

I think a storage engine doesn't need a internal LRU, what's about you?
Reason as follows:
1) Storage engine just do fast Write/Read(guarantee less I/Os), not
sensitive the optimal of cache.
2) The external LRU(such put datas to Redis or others memory cache) is more
flexible.
 
So, I removed the 'LRU' from 'unstable' branch.
Hope for any suggestions.
 
Thanks
BohuTANG


 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group nessdb.
You can post via email.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an empty message.
For more options, visit this group.

[Bohu TANG]

Thanks for your nice views.

But nessDB storage engine focus on less I/Os.

The LRU may be added in db-server layer.

Thanks,

BohuTANG

--

BohuTANG

"The great artist is the simplifier."--- Vincent Van Gogh