Re: [PEPr] Comment on Database::DB_Cache

On 20 Feb 2006 19:48:12 -0000, Thomas Munz <thomas@schulermanager.at> wrote: > > Thomas Munz (http://pear.php.net/user/munzili) has commented on the proposal for > Database::DB_Cache. > > Comment: > > SQLite is better in this case. SQLite is better to handle and keep > performance. There may exists some Application, that are used only for GUI > Statistic display, that don't have any update, so the cache can increase. > SQLite only need the RAM, that the returned result takes, but Cache_lite > reads the full file and takes the full RAM Actually, if you name the cache key after the SQL being performed, you would have one file per SQL statement. You would cache serialized results, and unserialize results pulled from the cache. You should never cache operations that insert, update, or delete items; only those that select. Cache_Lite is perfect for this sort of operation -- it's purpose is for caching information that is semi-static. Additionally, using Cache_Lite would be one less dependency on system specific installations (RDBMS, Sqlite, etc.). -- Matthew Weier O'Phinney PHP Developer | matthew@zend.com Zend Technologies | http://www.zend.com/