On Mon, 23 Oct 2006, hemant wrote:
> On 10/23/06, khaines / enigo.com <khaines / enigo.com> wrote:
>> Francis remembers right.  I did this for, essentially, a replacement for
>> pstore that didn't need to read an index into memory for each transaction,
>> so it'd have flat memory usage and speed regarless of the size of number
>> of elements in the store.  It works pretty well.
>
> Not a queue, but i use memcache for such needs, where i must offload
> data storage to some external engine, because Ruby doesn't play nice
> with ever growing "in memory " data structures.
>
> Of course..its not suitable for many things, but it works for me and
> its quite fast. Any cons?

memcache is something of a different beast, but that aside, the con to 
memcache is that one must have memcache installed.  There is no barrier to 
usage for some sort of simple to-disk persistence mechanism because they 
can be trivially written using only the libraries in the standard Ruby 
distribution.

Memcache also doesn't help if one wants the data to survive machine 
reboots, or be something that a person can transfer to another computer, 
archive, edit, or whatever.

On the flipside, though, if neither of those are a concern, memcache is 
going to give better speed.


Kirk Haines