5 ms·

Is it worthwhile to replace a MySQL with Redis? Am I losing something?

• patrec 8y ago
  Your data, eventually? If that's OK, some of the time, then Redis might be fine and will be much faster (since not losing data involves much more work).
  • edpichler 8y ago
    Hello, with Redis I can lose data? It does not create snapshots and has some High Availability configuration easy to setup?
    • patrec 8y ago
      As far as I'm aware any setup of Redis, including Redis cluster uses asynchronous replication, so you will lose some window of data.
• michaelangerman 8y ago
  I believe if you think of Redis as a data structure server, then there are lots of applications you can build out that have simple commands like set and get for both lists and hashmaps that are slightly different ways of thinking about saving and retrieving your data. The concept of a set is very powerful and easier to implement I believe than using SQL.
  • manigandham 8y ago
    Relational databases are based on relational algebra which is all about operating on sets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_algebra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_algebra
• Can_Not 8y ago
  Redis is not a drop-in replacement for an SQL server. It's more like a RAM based key value store with better data type options than "just string" and it's also like a swiss army knife. In a generic Rails/Laravel/MVC setup you could use redis to handle one or all of: sessions, cache, queue, pubsub, (probably more), effectively lifting the burden from your SQL server.