[BUG] Slow Performance of FusionCache compared to Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.Memory.MemoryCache about fusioncache HOT 4 CLOSED

Hi @raghumirajkar and thanks for using FusionCache.

expected fusion cache to be more performant

FusionCache underneath uses IMemoryCache for L1 and IDistributedCache for L2, see the intro here:

It uses a memory cache (any impl of the standard IMemoryCache interface) as the primary backing store and, optionally, a distributed cache (any impl of the standard IDistributedCache interface) as a secondary backing store for better resilience and higher performance, for example in a multi-node scenario or to avoid the typical effects of a cold start (initial empty cache, maybe after a restart).

Because of this it cannot physically be faster than MemoryCache, since it is in fact MemoryCache + extra features.

One question you may pose yourself is "then why should I use FusionCache, instead of simply using MemoryCache?" and the answer to that are all the extra features of FusionCache like cache stampede prevention, an optional 2nd level, fail-safe, soft/hard timeouts, backplane, auto-recovery and many more.

Hope this helps, let me know.

PS: I'm experimenting with a new version that will use a more optimized memory cache for the L1 then MemoryCache, but there's nothing to see yet.

PPS: I'm also keeping an eye on this which may or may not come with .NET 9.

from fusioncache.

@jodydonetti Have you explored alternative like https://github.com/bitfaster/BitFaster.Caching for L1 cache instead of .NET MemoryCache ?

from fusioncache.

Hi @madhub , yep totally, on top of others.
It's something I'm experimenting with from some time, playing with different designs, benchmarking them, etc.

One idea may be to have a new IFusionCacheMemoryLevel or something like that so that we can switch between different implementations, like we already can with IDistributedCache or IFusionCacheBackplane.

Another idea is that I may also end up creating an optimized one specifically for FusionCache, and use that instead of depending on a 3rd party one.

Again, I'm playing with different designs and waiting to see what .NET 9 will bring to the table.

In the case of BitFaster.Caching for example there's the problem that the Duration is per-cache and not per-cache-entry, see here.

from fusioncache.

I'm closing this: if you think I've missed something let me know and I'll gladly re-open it.

from fusioncache.