←back to thread

82 points lsferreira42 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.206s | source
Show context
marklubi ◴[] No.42200044[source]
This sort of makes me sad. Redis has strayed from what its original goal/purpose was.

I’ve been using it since it was in beta. Simple, clear, fast.

The company I’m working for now keeps trying to add more and more functionality using Redis, that doesn’t belong in Redis, and then complains about Redis scaling issues.

replies(4): >>42201722 #>>42201795 #>>42202030 #>>42202451 #
reissbaker ◴[] No.42201795[source]
What do you think doesn't belong in Redis? I've always viewed Redis as basically "generic datastructures in a database" — as opposed to say, Memcached, which is a very simple in-memory-only key/value store (that has always been much faster than Redis). It's hard for me to point to specific features and say: that doesn't belong in Redis! Because Redis has generally felt (to me) like a grab bag of data structures + algorithms, that are meant to be fairly low-latency but not maximally so, where your dataset has to fit in RAM (but is regularly flushed to disk so you avoid cold start issues).
replies(5): >>42202143 #>>42202153 #>>42202379 #>>42202623 #>>42207143 #
ChocolateGod ◴[] No.42202153[source]
If your application can't survive the Redis server being wiped without issues, you're using Redis wrong.
replies(5): >>42202525 #>>42202734 #>>42202747 #>>42202843 #>>42203450 #
reissbaker ◴[] No.42202525[source]
Why not just use Memcached, then? Memcached is much better as an ephemeral cache than Redis — Redis is single-threaded. The point of Redis is all of its extra features: if you're limiting yourself to Memcached-style usage, IMO you're using Redis wrong and should just use Memcached.
replies(2): >>42202689 #>>42202804 #
1. ChocolateGod ◴[] No.42202804[source]
Redis supports multiple forms of replication for HA