blocks|key|4554136|text|memcached是你的朋友！(但如果您不向外扩展，则可能会过度杀伤力)|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|offset|length|data|4554137|你知道你的字典在应用程序缓存中有多大吗？我很想推荐它作为一个很好的首选。|4554138|entityMap|0|LINK|mutability|MUTABLE|url|http://www.danga.com/memcached/^0|0|9|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|N|8|@]|9|@$A|O|B|P|1|Q]]|C|$]]|$1|D|3|E|5|6|7|R|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|F|3|-4|5|6|7|S|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]]|G|$H|$5|I|J|K|C|$L|M]]]]

<a href="http://www.danga.com/memcached/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">memcached</a> is your friend! (but could be overkill if you're not scaling out)

Any idea how large your dictionary would be in application cache? I'd be tempted to recommend that as a good first option.

blocks|key|1534156|text|Application和Cache集合不序列化您传递给它们的对象，它们存储实际的引用。无论对象有多大，从缓存中检索对象都不是一项开销很大的操作。总是坚持使用Cache对象，除非你有很好的理由不这样做，这是一个很好的实践。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1534157|值得一提的是，确保您考虑对此集合的多线程访问。如果没有正确锁定，你很快就会遇到一些严重的问题|1534158|entityMap^0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|F|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|G|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|-4|5|6|7|H|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|E|$]]

The Application and Cache collections do not serialize the objects you pass into them, they store the actual reference. Retrieving an object from Cache will not be an expensive operation, no matter how large the object is. Always stick with the Cache objects unless you have a very good reason not to, its just good practice.

The only other thing worth mentioning is to make sure you think about multithreaded access to this collection. You're going to end up with some serious issues very quickly if you don't lock properly

blocks|key|1532170|text|好吧，如果需要的话，我不认为重写代码来使用静态字段而不是应用程序缓存会有太多的工作。我个人会先使用缓存。没有必要过早优化，你测量过它的性能吗？它可能与应用程序缓存对象的行为恰到好处。也许它甚至可以很好地处理db查询？:)|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1532171|所以，我的答案是-使用缓存，看看它是如何工作的。|1532172|entityMap^0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|F|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|G|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|-4|5|6|7|H|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|E|$]]

Well, I don't think it's so much work to rewrite code to use a static field instead of application cache if there's need to do so. I'd personally use the cache first. There's no need for premature optimization, have you measured the performance? It may behave just right with the application cache object. Maybe it even works well with db queries? :)

So, my answer is - use the cache and see how it works.

blocks|key|232483|text|一般来说，如果你能控制底层对象的更新，你应该使用静态存储。否则，如果您依赖第三方API进行数据检索，请使用缓存技术。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|232484|entityMap^0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|D|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|-4|5|6|7|E|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|C|$]]

IMHO, generally speaking, if you have control on updates on underlying object, you should use static storage. Otherwise, if you are dependent on a 3rd party API for data retrievals, use Caching technology.

I am building a web-store with many departments and categories. They are stored in our database and accessed often. 

We are using URL rewriting so almost every request within the store generates a lookup. We also need to iterate over the data frequently to generate menus for the main store and the department pages.

This information will not change often so I'm thinking that I should load the database into a dictionary to speed up the information retrieval. 

I know the standard practice is to load data into the application cache, however i assume that there is some level of serialization that occurs during caching, and for a large data-structure I'm thinking the overhead would be significant. 

My impulse on this is to put the dictionary in a static variable in one of the related classes. I would however like to get some input input on this. Am I right in thinking that this method would be faster? Is it horrible practice? Is there a better way that I'm missing?

I can't seem to find much information on this and I'd really appreciate any information that you can share. Thanks!

Asp.net - Caching vs Static Variable for storing a Dictionary

翻译质量差，导致语言生硬或混乱。

没有提供实际的解决方法或示例。

解答不清晰，无法理解或解决问题。

页面排版不美观，阅读体验差。

文章

问答

视频

学习中心

腾讯云实验室

直播

竞赛

腾讯云代码分析专区

腾讯iOA零信任安全管理系统专区

腾讯云架构师技术同盟交流圈

腾讯云数据库专区

腾讯云顾问专区

腾讯云原生专区

腾讯混元专区

腾讯云TCE专区

腾讯云Lighthouse专区

腾讯云HAI专区

腾讯云Edgeone专区

腾讯云存储专区

腾讯云智能专区

腾讯轻联专区 

腾讯云开发专区

TAPD专区

腾讯轻量云游戏服专区

腾讯云最具价值专家

腾讯云架构师技术同盟

腾讯云创作之星

腾讯云开发者先锋

腾讯云代码助手

云原生构建

TAPD 敏捷项目管理

Cloud Studio

SDK中心

API中心

命令行工具

涵盖代码开发、场景应用、自动测试全流程，助你从零构建专属AI助手

一站式MCP教程库，解锁AI应用新玩法

我正在建立一个有许多部门和类别的网上商店。它们存储在我们的数据库中，并且经常被访问。我们使用URL重写，因此存储中的几乎每个请求都会生成一个查找。我们还需要频繁地迭代数据，以便为主商店和百货公司页面生成菜单。此信息不会经常更改，因此我认为应该将数据库加载到字典中，以加快信息检索速度。我知道标准做法是将数据加载到应用程序...

问用于存储字典的Asp.net缓存与静态变量
EN

Stack Overflow用户

社区

活动

圈层

关于

腾讯云开发者

热门产品

热门推荐

更多推荐

问用于存储字典的Asp.net缓存与静态变量EN