On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Michael Tiemann wrote:
> Here's an excerpt from a database comparison between Oracle, DB2, MySQL,
> SQLserver, and Sybase. (I just asked the author why postgres wasn't used.)
>
> MySQL's great performance was due mostly to our use of an in-memory query
> results cache that is new in MySQL 4.0.1. When we tested without this cache,
> MySQL's performance fell by two-thirds.
>
> Anyway, this confirms an earlier message suggesting that for web servers that
> have relatively constant queries, query caching can be a Big Deal.
>
> <http://www.eweek.com/article/0,3658,s=708&a=23115,00.asp>
If the use of a database on a webserver is to keep serving up the same
data over and over again that the database caches it, why not just serve
up a static page? You can keep the content of an entire website in a
database and generate static pages as the content changes. The PostgreSQL
website does this. The only exception being the iDocs, but that's not
hit enough to worry about with caching or making some of the pages static.
I have a number of webservers that are database driven and I'd be
surprized if any of them saw the same queries even twice in the same day.
Anything I know that will get requested that often will be made static -
and since I designed the site, I know what's going to be requested
repeatedly.
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com http://www.pop4.net 56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo
atPop4 Networking Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstore
http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================
