Re: Shared memory - to use or not to use?

> Which of these would be fastest? The shared memory option seems most > logical to me, but then it seems that I'd have to take on a lot of > responsibility for managing the locations of the values (some sort of Shared memory would probably be fastest but you've got to a lot of work by hand. You might find interesting the session handler someone posted here awhile back that used shared memory to keep track of the session data, since that was also retrieving keyed values. However, you're really not talking about inordinately high traffic volumes on the server with decent hardware. I think you'd find the MySQL approach would be much easier to develop and manage and, assuming a sane way of picking ads, I think you'd find that a query would take a few thousandths of a second. The big catch is that "sane way of picking ads" and actually sending the ad data. If you've got a reasonable number of ads, you might want to store the actual image data in shared memory along with everything you'd need to compute that can't be done quickly.