3 ms·

Normal request: Request -> work -> work.. -> query/db Efective Cache: Request -> (less)work -> cache This Product: Request -> work -> work.. -> query/cache

Normal request: Request -> work -> work.. -> query/db Efective Cache: Request -> (less)work -> cache This Product: Request -> work -> work.. -> query/cache I understand the concept of caching at a boundary layer. I fail to see the point of cache at THIS boundary layer. You have all the problems of a cache with fewer benefits (you're not going to fix a thundering Hurd at this level).

hobofan 3y ago
> You have all the problems of a cache with fewer benefits No you don't. You have next to none of the problems of a cache (especially as you directly have to opt-in individual queries to it) like cache invalidation, etc., with all the benefits. It's about as free as performance benefits can be (from a implementations standpoint). I understand that for many use-cases caching at the response level may be preferable, but there are also many use-cases that are read-heavy but also involve a lot of computed values that are updated and have to be recomputed regularly, where this dataflow-based approach has been shown to be one of the least compute intensive and efficient solutions.
- zer00eyz 3y ago
  >> I understand that for many use-cases caching at the response level may be preferable Yes after all the data + work/compute >> there are also many use-cases that are read-heavy but also involve a lot of computed values that are updated and have to be recomputed regularly, where this dataflow-based approach has been shown to be one of the least compute intensive and efficient solutions. From a comp sci, from a programing, from an engineering perspective I get this. But at the end of the day those are just the hammers and nails of the business. I am wondering where the actual, in production use case, with business need requires this. I can think of a dozen technical fuck ups where this solution is appealing but that's just stacking irresponsibly...

hobofan 3y ago

> You have all the problems of a cache with fewer benefits No you don't. You have next to none of the problems of a cache (especially as you directly have to opt-in individual queries to it) like cache invalidation, etc., with all the benefits. It's about as free as performance benefits can be (from a implementations standpoint). I understand that for many use-cases caching at the response level may be preferable, but there are also many use-cases that are read-heavy but also involve a lot of computed values that are updated and have to be recomputed regularly, where this dataflow-based approach has been shown to be one of the least compute intensive and efficient solutions.

zer00eyz 3y ago
>> I understand that for many use-cases caching at the response level may be preferable Yes after all the data + work/compute >> there are also many use-cases that are read-heavy but also involve a lot of computed values that are updated and have to be recomputed regularly, where this dataflow-based approach has been shown to be one of the least compute intensive and efficient solutions. From a comp sci, from a programing, from an engineering perspective I get this. But at the end of the day those are just the hammers and nails of the business. I am wondering where the actual, in production use case, with business need requires this. I can think of a dozen technical fuck ups where this solution is appealing but that's just stacking irresponsibly...