> No cache gets you 10x I've done much better. Think sticking a a cache in front of a database with seriously complex queries. Yes you need to be be aware of s

> No cache gets you 10x I've done much better. Think sticking a a cache in front of a database with seriously complex queries. Yes you need to be be aware of staleness, no it's not a magic wand, but it delivered massive improvements. > When the cache was put in place it accounted for 40% of run time If looking shit up in a hash table, at a few hundred or thousand cpu ticks, cost 40% of your runtime then I smell PEBKAC[1], not cache problems. [1] Not you personally but someone