On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:29:31 -0400 Bastien Koert <phpster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 1:23 PM, > workerholic@xxxxxxxxxxxx<workerholic@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > hmm, the infrastructure ist good, this is just this query.... > > so to solve my problem i could run mysql on the application server > > and store just this table > > and read the query from them, it could solve my problem litte, i > > hope so! > > > > > > > > Daniel Brown schrieb: > >> > >> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 13:07, > >> workerholic@xxxxxxxxxxxx<workerholic@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> hi andrew i think you understand my problem a little, > >>> but if 100 user load this query at the same time, the two mysql > >>> server had a > >>> lot to do! > >>> so i think to cache this query as xml to the application server > >>> local make > >>> thinks faster, > >>> but, i would like to have the same performance to read this xml > >>> document as > >>> read the query from mysql server... > >>> i dont know why php is so slow to read the xml file... > >>> > >> > >> It will be slower to read a file than data from an SQL database > >> by sheer design --- regardless of whether it's XML, CSV, plain > >> text, etc. And MySQL is faster still because it's run as a server > >> with it's own processing engine, completely independent of the PHP > >> engine and spawned process. Other factors involved are disk seek > >> time, memory capabilities, et cetera, but the SQL-vs-file point is > >> the biggest. > >> > >> For PHP to locate something within the file, it must load the > >> entire file into memory or read it byte-by-byte, line-by-line, > >> from an exact offset (given explicitly). SQL databases such as > >> MySQL work similarly, but don't catalog all data in quite the same > >> linear fashion. Further, MySQL is capable of indexing, allowing > >> it to return the data far faster. > >> > >> There's a time and a place for each, but it sounds as though > >> what you're attempting to do would not be best-served by caching > >> it in an XML sheet. > >> > >> Also, something to keep in mind (with no offense intended by any > >> means): if you have two database servers (using replication) for > >> load-balancing and they - combined - cannot handle 100 simultaneous > >> connections and queries, you may want to re-evaluate your > >> infrastructure and architecture. > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > > > > is all the data from the query the same for each user? I.e. that they > get the same 4K rows of data for that query? How is that query done? > are there date parameters or other fields that would allow table > partitioning on the data? Could you use a temp table, to store that > data or a more fixed table that stores just that query's dataset? > > Also how large is the main table? > > I don't know much about mysql, as I've been using it only for some basic things, but, couldn't you just set a bigger query_cache? The first user would have that 0.3" query, but the other 99 would get the results in... 0.001"? 0.002"? -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
