<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Cache Performance Comparison</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/08/09/cache-performance-comparison/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/08/09/cache-performance-comparison/</link>
	<description>Everything about MySQL Performance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:23:57 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: neworld</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/08/09/cache-performance-comparison/comment-page-2/#comment-657953</link>
		<dc:creator>neworld</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:40:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/08/09/cache-performance-comparison/#comment-657953</guid>
		<description>For read-only data per page, you should use persist. If you need write data, you can lose some data, because, all pages have one connection, and share &quot;last_inserted_id&quot;, locks and etc.

Sorry for my bad english</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For read-only data per page, you should use persist. If you need write data, you can lose some data, because, all pages have one connection, and share &#8220;last_inserted_id&#8221;, locks and etc.</p>
<p>Sorry for my bad english</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Darklg Web (darklgweb) 's status on Friday, 04-Sep-09 11:50:13 UTC - Identi.ca</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/08/09/cache-performance-comparison/comment-page-2/#comment-646798</link>
		<dc:creator>Darklg Web (darklgweb) 's status on Friday, 04-Sep-09 11:50:13 UTC - Identi.ca</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 11:50:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/08/09/cache-performance-comparison/#comment-646798</guid>
		<description>[...]  http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/08/09/cache-performance-comparison/        a few seconds ago  from web [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...]  <a href="http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/08/09/cache-performance-comparison/" rel="nofollow">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/08/09/cache-performance-comparison/</a>        a few seconds ago  from web [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Memcached and APC: Two Simple Techniques to Speed up your PHP Web Application &#124; Simon Holywell</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/08/09/cache-performance-comparison/comment-page-2/#comment-623960</link>
		<dc:creator>Memcached and APC: Two Simple Techniques to Speed up your PHP Web Application &#124; Simon Holywell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 13:28:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/08/09/cache-performance-comparison/#comment-623960</guid>
		<description>[...] APC is faster as a straight PHP call on the memory cache, but you can only access the memory cache from the local PHP process.  I have not tested it but I am unsure if that means you can access it from CLI PHP as well as via PHP running on Apache.  Often I will have a PHP frontend with any server scripts (for example cronjobs) written in Python so it is very handy to be able to access the cache from a central location, which with memcached is possible but not with APC as it is PHP specific.  For more information on performance and advice on when various caching methods may be more useful Peter over at MySQLPerformanceBlog has written an interest article Cache Performance&#160;Comparison. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] APC is faster as a straight PHP call on the memory cache, but you can only access the memory cache from the local PHP process.  I have not tested it but I am unsure if that means you can access it from CLI PHP as well as via PHP running on Apache.  Often I will have a PHP frontend with any server scripts (for example cronjobs) written in Python so it is very handy to be able to access the cache from a central location, which with memcached is possible but not with APC as it is PHP specific.  For more information on performance and advice on when various caching methods may be more useful Peter over at MySQLPerformanceBlog has written an interest article Cache Performance&nbsp;Comparison. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anton Ongsono</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/08/09/cache-performance-comparison/comment-page-2/#comment-567187</link>
		<dc:creator>Anton Ongsono</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2009 08:47:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/08/09/cache-performance-comparison/#comment-567187</guid>
		<description>which one is better? persisten connection or non persistant connection?

thanks</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>which one is better? persisten connection or non persistant connection?</p>
<p>thanks</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scaling Up: Reducing Drag, Increasing Lift &#124; BrandonSavage.net</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/08/09/cache-performance-comparison/comment-page-2/#comment-488059</link>
		<dc:creator>Scaling Up: Reducing Drag, Increasing Lift &#124; BrandonSavage.net</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:52:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/08/09/cache-performance-comparison/#comment-488059</guid>
		<description>[...] The problem is compounded if that request is made over TCP/IP (as opposed to localhost), though both are fairly slow. Many developers will make multiple requests on a page to get various components of that page; this [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The problem is compounded if that request is made over TCP/IP (as opposed to localhost), though both are fairly slow. Many developers will make multiple requests on a page to get various components of that page; this [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kraloyun</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/08/09/cache-performance-comparison/comment-page-2/#comment-454115</link>
		<dc:creator>kraloyun</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:36:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/08/09/cache-performance-comparison/#comment-454115</guid>
		<description>APC Is extension for PHP which does opcode caching bur can cache user objects as well
this is nice idea.thank u</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>APC Is extension for PHP which does opcode caching bur can cache user objects as well<br />
this is nice idea.thank u</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cinco funcionalidades que podem ser desenvolvidas (e otimizadas) usando o memcache &#124; Sana inside</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/08/09/cache-performance-comparison/comment-page-2/#comment-447098</link>
		<dc:creator>Cinco funcionalidades que podem ser desenvolvidas (e otimizadas) usando o memcache &#124; Sana inside</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2009 20:02:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/08/09/cache-performance-comparison/#comment-447098</guid>
		<description>[...] rápido do que um &#8220;select from table&#8221; no já rápido mysql em acessos via tcp/ip (veja esse benchmark), o memcache pode ser usado como único mecanismo de armazenamento para aumentar bastante o [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] rápido do que um &#8220;select from table&#8221; no já rápido mysql em acessos via tcp/ip (veja esse benchmark), o memcache pode ser usado como único mecanismo de armazenamento para aumentar bastante o [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bulletproof your server to survive Digg/Slashdot &#124; Kev009.com</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/08/09/cache-performance-comparison/comment-page-2/#comment-411990</link>
		<dc:creator>Bulletproof your server to survive Digg/Slashdot &#124; Kev009.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Dec 2008 21:42:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/08/09/cache-performance-comparison/#comment-411990</guid>
		<description>[...] true since web apps are primarily read oriented.  The query cache isn&#8217;t perfect in all situations, and in larger sites memcached is more appropriate but has its own disadvantages (see memcached [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] true since web apps are primarily read oriented.  The query cache isn&#8217;t perfect in all situations, and in larger sites memcached is more appropriate but has its own disadvantages (see memcached [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: {&#124;ihower.idv.tw&#124; blog } &#124; 實戰 memcached</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/08/09/cache-performance-comparison/comment-page-2/#comment-361069</link>
		<dc:creator>{&#124;ihower.idv.tw&#124; blog } &#124; 實戰 memcached</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:13:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/08/09/cache-performance-comparison/#comment-361069</guid>
		<description>[...] SQL query result 可以用 MySQL 內建 Query Cache，設定很簡單，效果很不錯 (Cache Performance Comparison。我自己的心得是很多時候你想要快取的物件其實並不是一個 SQL query [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] SQL query result 可以用 MySQL 內建 Query Cache，設定很簡單，效果很不錯 (Cache Performance Comparison。我自己的心得是很多時候你想要快取的物件其實並不是一個 SQL query [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Colnector</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/08/09/cache-performance-comparison/comment-page-2/#comment-356669</link>
		<dc:creator>Colnector</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2008 04:20:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/08/09/cache-performance-comparison/#comment-356669</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve related to your interesting post in a post I&#039;ve made about &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.colnect.com/2008/09/performance-mysql-apc-memcached.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;performance&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve related to your interesting post in a post I&#8217;ve made about <a href="http://blog.colnect.com/2008/09/performance-mysql-apc-memcached.html" rel="nofollow">performance</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
