[nycphp-talk] DB Abstraction Peformance
mitch.pirtle at gmail.com
Mon Jan 3 13:55:03 EST 2005
Having the query cache in MySQL enabled should be adequate.
We did a lot of testing for Mambo, and learned that although ADOdb's
client-side caching was faster than MySQL's query cache (no network
trips at all, as the cache was on the webserver instead of on the
database machine), we also saw the load go up on the webserver
(especially on slower hardware or sites under heavy load).
Finally, after all that work, we discovered that caching the output
(templates, output HTML etc.) gave us MUCH MORE significant results
than any query caching toolkits available.
So you can use whichever caching you prefer, but know that researching
something like PEAR's Cache_Lite would provide infinitely more
performance gains for about the same amount of effort.
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 11:32:36 -0500 (EST), alienz at 53cleveland.org
<alienz at 53cleveland.org> wrote:
> While I like the flexibility of Creole (http://creole.phpdb.org/) I
> benched it along with ADOdb and straight MySQL using the benchmark from
> Seems Creole is slightly slower than ADOdb, but nothing comes close to
> MySQL, I was wondering if anyone had an opinion on this sort of thing.
> With a MySQL cache turned on should I be worried about performance on a
> site that is mostly SELECT's?
> New York PHP Talk
> Supporting AMP Technology (Apache/MySQL/PHP)
More information about the talk