4 ms·

I never understood the diehard love for Redis when memcache always scaled better across nodes & was multithreaded (better utilizing on node resources)

codetrotter 3y ago
I've only used Redis a bit, and memcached not at all yet. But sometimes the superior alternative might lose out simply due to bad luck. I.e. that Redis gained traction and that was it. Or perhaps getting started with Redis is more easy/straight forward than memcached and that's why. Or it could be any of the features that Redis has which memcached does not that contributed to this outcome.
- miohtama 3y ago
  - Redis offer much richer set of commands than memcached, making it easy to integrate - Redis documentation is very good, likely leading to more adoption - Most applications are not performance limited, but developer resource limited, making performance considerations secondary
macNchz 3y ago
Redis is simply more useful if you're not pushing max throughput using it purely as a cache. It has really useful support for a variety of data structures and operations, and I'd guess that Memcached's (previous) 1mb limit per item drove a good number of people to look for other options over time.
- ed25519FUUU 3y ago
  The 1MB limit was a big driver for a long time. Also redis had a persistence option.
berkle4455 3y ago
Because most of us use Redis for vastly more than a kv. Memcached is excellent if you only have basic cache needs.
whalesalad 3y ago
redis is a swiss army knife. memcached is a single blade.
revskill 3y ago
Try harder ? Noone could explain to you though.
Mikushi 3y ago
Eons ago now (circa 2009/2010 I think), when working on Pornhub we switched from memcached to Redis for a few reasons: - memcache had little to no observability, it made debugging cache issues a nightmare. Redis on the other hand is a dream to work with on that front, from the cli that is well thought out to the fact you can copy the db file to your machine and go at it, it's just a much better developer experience. - Data structures, Redis' lists, hashes and sets meant we could represent a lot of a stuff as is in cache with no need for costly serializing. It also meant the data layer code was simpler than the memcached equivalent. - Built in pub/sub, we used it for tons of stuff and the fact it came built in was big as prior to that we had to provision specific stacks to get the same functionality (and it wasn't has nice to use. memcache has its use but for the little advantages it gave (perf wise) Redis just buried it in developer experience.

codetrotter 3y ago

I've only used Redis a bit, and memcached not at all yet. But sometimes the superior alternative might lose out simply due to bad luck. I.e. that Redis gained traction and that was it. Or perhaps getting started with Redis is more easy/straight forward than memcached and that's why. Or it could be any of the features that Redis has which memcached does not that contributed to this outcome.

miohtama 3y ago
- Redis offer much richer set of commands than memcached, making it easy to integrate - Redis documentation is very good, likely leading to more adoption - Most applications are not performance limited, but developer resource limited, making performance considerations secondary

macNchz 3y ago

Redis is simply more useful if you're not pushing max throughput using it purely as a cache. It has really useful support for a variety of data structures and operations, and I'd guess that Memcached's (previous) 1mb limit per item drove a good number of people to look for other options over time.

ed25519FUUU 3y ago
The 1MB limit was a big driver for a long time. Also redis had a persistence option.

berkle4455 3y ago

Because most of us use Redis for vastly more than a kv. Memcached is excellent if you only have basic cache needs.

whalesalad 3y ago

redis is a swiss army knife. memcached is a single blade.

revskill 3y ago

Try harder ? Noone could explain to you though.

Mikushi 3y ago

Eons ago now (circa 2009/2010 I think), when working on Pornhub we switched from memcached to Redis for a few reasons: - memcache had little to no observability, it made debugging cache issues a nightmare. Redis on the other hand is a dream to work with on that front, from the cli that is well thought out to the fact you can copy the db file to your machine and go at it, it's just a much better developer experience. - Data structures, Redis' lists, hashes and sets meant we could represent a lot of a stuff as is in cache with no need for costly serializing. It also meant the data layer code was simpler than the memcached equivalent. - Built in pub/sub, we used it for tons of stuff and the fact it came built in was big as prior to that we had to provision specific stacks to get the same functionality (and it wasn't has nice to use. memcache has its use but for the little advantages it gave (perf wise) Redis just buried it in developer experience.