Presumably they preferred to stay within the mysql world. I didn't read the article in detail, but I couldn't help but wonder why not use innodb more directly [

Presumably they preferred to stay within the mysql world. I didn't read the article in detail, but I couldn't help but wonder why not use innodb more directly [1]? Imagine how much CPU is wasted using a full blown RDBMS SQL engine on top of InnoDB just to do key-value read/writes. I have some experience with this having worked on an experimental storage engine for mysql that we connected to a transactional in-memory k-v store. The performance penalty for simple k-v workload through mysql was quite substantial, though our storage engine code was probably not sufficiently optimized. It would be interesting to explore this for innodb though [1] https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.6/en/innodb-memcached.html https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.6/en/innodb-memcached.htm...