Writing my program based on fastcache ttl... please make it ready.

[hiqinternational]

Will wait for ttl of fastcache.
Thanks.

[hiqinternational]

a pr in progress. is ttl bad?

[kirillDanshin]

@hiqinternational ttl works, but tests aren’t ready yet: they failing on Travis although they are working fine on servers.

But next time use comments on PR instead please

[hiqinternational]

@kirillDanshin yes I will. Thanks. I know about the fail as I'm watching it daily. I just can't believe that this piece of software is still not ready on June 2019.

But I thought about it and think that maybe the thumb's down is not without reasons. I mean, as it is, this piece of software should be very good.

Marshalling the expiry field into the value vs implicitly doing the ttl.
For 100 million keys, cache expiry's "GC routine" overhead may be very high, so far no one answered this question below yet. can you help? coz it directly co-relates to this question actually.

#14

[hiqinternational]

Please do another one with TTL and cache hits?
A NewTTL() function / initialization for cache.

I think can be

item.Hit++ for every read and pushing it higher. (0.5 [up to 16 hits] or 1 byte [up to 256 hits] extra per item)
item.TTL able to add more time etc but time should be in seconds 1.5 byte or 2 bytes extra... (if we can set this will be great) as configuration options for ttl and cache hit...

is this idea ok?