Is Memcached more optimised to be a cache store? I have the idea that Redis can be used as both Message Queue and Cache Store, but memcached is more of a caching layer. What do you think?
Speed and Simplicity
Until recently, Memcached would still obliterate Redis when it came to read / write performance, it's only in early-2015 that Redis finally caught up (I haven't tested it recently, but looking at the architecture changes in Redis, it should be on par with Memcached).
If you're only looking for caching, I would also have a look at Hazelcast, it uses the same protocol as Memcached. If you're already using Redis, keep on using it.
We're still using Memcahced to cache session tokens.
Nitin Bhojwani
Software Engineer
Here's your answer:
Memcached should be used only for caching small and static data, such as HTML code fragments. Reason is Memcached will consume comparatively less memory resources for metadata. Strings, which are the only data type that are supported by Memcached, are ideal for storing data that's only being read because strings require no further processing.
Redis in all other cases. Reason is Redis' ability to fine-tune cache contents and durability -- and greater efficiency overall.
More info here: