From this post, it is clear that the Stack Overflow team uses Redis heavily and it has been working well for them. Since there are a number of other similar solutions in the cache space, I was wondering why the Stack Overflow team went with Redis over Memcached (or any others).

Could anyone shed some light on this for me?

While my project is nowhere near the traffic volumes of Stack Overflow, I've been asked to investigate a cache solution and I thought I would ask one of the most-well respected and open groups available to see if they could share any insight into why Redis was selected.

  • Anecdotally, the post you linked suggests that Redis is hella fast, and the Team has experience with it.
    – user102937
    Jan 23, 2012 at 21:03
  • @RobertHarvey - Yes, Redis is hell'a fast, and I agree that the team has experience with it based on the post and the time that's passed since then, but a number of Redis vs. Memcache benchmarks I've found indicate that Memcache might be a bit faster, so I was wondering what other reasoning (or what reasoning in general) went into selecting Redis. Even if the reason was "first thing we tried and it worked for us", I'd still like to know :)
    – cdeszaq
    Jan 23, 2012 at 21:13

1 Answer 1


I think that they chose Redis, because Redis can do a lot more things than Memcached.

Take a look at this reply: https://stackoverflow.com/a/11257333

Even if Memcached is a bit faster, Redis remains a good choice in regard of:

  • Persistence of data: you do not need to warm your cache.
  • Storing data: more manipulations, requesting, and atomic levels of storage.
  • Evolving: Redis is actively evolving, and from my point of view that's a better bet for the future than Memcached.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .