←back to thread

82 points lsferreira42 | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.399s | 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 #
1. theshrike79 ◴[] No.42202843[source]
I always just think of Redis as a HashMap As A Service that only supports string keys.

It's nice if the stuff stays there, because my application will be faster. If it goes down I need a few seconds to re-populate it and we're back.

replies(1): >>42208710 #
2. reissbaker ◴[] No.42208710[source]
You should use Memcached if you're only using Redis as an ephemeral hashmap. It's much faster.