Re: Negative caching

["Matthias Urlichs" <smurf@noris.net>]

Hi,

Matti Aarnio:
> > NB, sort-of-completely-unrelated question: Is there a sensible reason
> > why Zmailer doesn't do any negative cashing? It would seem that
> > fixing this would be _really_ trivial.
> 
> 	Whatever method is used, a 10 000 entry cache isn't going to be
> 	quick to lookup/clean.
> 
I'm not talking about 10000 entries. More likely 100 or so.

We have a local database connection, and fairly involved .cf files.
It seems rather wasteful to check the exact same information multiple
times.

> 	Considering it, presume you have an external socket interfaced DB
> 	(like LDAP) using cache, you notice that something is missing, you
> 	insert the data, but then have to wait for same time as the positive
> 	cache waits before next lookup of same key.
> 
The same happens when the information changes.
It's not a problem for me.

-- 
Matthias Urlichs  |  noris network GmbH   |   smurf@noris.de  |  ICQ: 20193661
The quote was selected randomly. Really.    |      http://www.noris.de/~smurf/
-- 
Q might have done the right thing for the wrong reason, perhaps we
  needed a good kick in our complacency to get us ready for what's ahead.
                -- Picard to Guinan, "Q-Who?", stardate 42761.3