CODEWITHSUNDEEP
cachingmemcachedhypertable
Aviad Ben Dov
Aviad Ben Dov

Reputation: 6409

Cache systems - Hypertable vs Memcached

I want to implement a cache system for our application, we've started integrating with Memcached. Recently I started hearing of Hypertable, and saw some great benchmarks done with that..

However, I couldn't find good comparison between the two.

Just to get things straight: I know that Hypertable is considered closer to a DB than to a cache. On the other hand, it's not exactly an RDBMS - in fact, it's exactly not an RDBMS. It has its own benefits, but the question is whether they're worth the performance cost (if any)?

Upvotes: 1

Views: 1221

Answers (2)

HeeZHa
HeeZHa

Reputation: 11

Memcached is used for speeding things up, e.g. results of SQL queries, without going to DB, by storing everything in memory (RAM).

Hypertable (HBase, Cassandra, MongoDB etc.) and others are permanent storage NoSQL DBs (data stored and retrieved from Hard Drives). They can't give you the performance of the reading/writing from/to RAM (e.g. memcached). So these are not compared to one another.

A better use case is to use NoSQL DBs for permanent storage, and using memcached as a front-side fast access cache between web-application and (NoSQL or any) DB.

Upvotes: 1

mckamey
mckamey

Reputation: 17539

Hypertable is an implementation of concepts in Google's BigTable. Namely a column-oriented DB which has properties of being highly denormalized which means it doesn't need joins.

Memcached is an in-memory caching layer which acts like a distributed hashtable, keeping your app from having to hit the actual DB.

Both lend themselves well to being distributed and work well with MapReduce style topologies but they serve different purposes. Memcached/DHT is going to serve to speed access to data in memory while HyperTable/BigTable are actual mechanisms for permanent data storage on disk.

Upvotes: 1

Related Questions