Redis PK Memcached

• There is no need to be overly concerned about performance, because both are already high enough in performance. Since Redis uses only single cores, and memcached can use multicore, on average, Redis has a higher performance than memcached for storing small data on a per-core scale. In more than 100k of data, memcached performance is higher than Redis, although Redis has recently been optimized for the performance of storing big data, but it is slightly inferior to memcached. Having said so much, the conclusion is that no matter which one you use, the number of requests per second will not be a bottleneck. (such as bottlenecks may be in the network card)
• If you want to say that memory usage efficiency, using simple key-value storage, memcached memory utilization is higher, and if Redis uses hash structure to do key-value storage, because of its combined compression, its memory utilization will be higher than memcached. Of course, this is related to your application scenario and data characteristics.
• If you have requirements for data persistence and data synchronization, it is recommended that you choose Redis because neither of these features memcached. Choosing Redis is also wise, even if you just want the cached data to be not lost after upgrading or rebooting the system.
• And, of course, you have to talk about your specific application needs in the end. Redis has more data structures and supports richer data operations than memcached, usually in memcached, you need to get the data to the client for similar modifications and set it back. This greatly increases the number of network IO and the volume of data. In Redis, these complex operations are often as efficient as the general get/set. So, if you need caching to support more complex structures and operations, Redis is a good choice.

Redis PK Memcached