# Should memcached be used with ES? **URL:** \ **Category:** Elasticsearch\ **Created:** [August 9, 2012, 7:59pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/should-memcached-be-used-with-es/8695 "2012-08-09T19:59:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![curious](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6bbea6/32.png) [@curious](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/curious)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2012, 7:59pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/should-memcached-be-used-with-es/8695/1 "2012-08-09T19:59:58Z")
Is it a good practice to use "Memcached" with ES, or would the built-in "Node Filter Cache" provide sufficient caching? ---
**Author:** ![Iftekharul\_Haque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19adc/32.png) [@Iftekharul\_Haque](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Iftekharul_Haque)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2012, 10:42pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/should-memcached-be-used-with-es/8695/2 "2012-08-10T22:42:31Z")
Just a caveat that you probably already know, but caching should only be used when absolutely needed. If you're coming up against performance issues, you'll probably be looking at a host of other solutions (upping the number of nodes, or improving your queries and index structure, for example) before considering caching. But if you're bent on caching, then memcached is probably as good as any other caching solution. ES would be mostly blind to any external caching you use in which case what caching solution is easily available to you, what you are more familiar with, and what is more in tune with your needs is more important than any 'good practice' considerations in that context. - Ifty. On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 9:59 PM, curious [springdalian@gmail.com](mailto:springdalian@gmail.com) wrote: > Is it a good practice to use "Memcached" with ES, or would the built-in > "Node Filter Cache" provide sufficient caching? -- ---
**Author:** ![jprante](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/jprante/32/44941_2.png) [@jprante](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/jprante)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 2:16pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/should-memcached-be-used-with-es/8695/3 "2012-08-11T14:16:50Z")
The best thing is to keep your Elasticsearch index in memory, and to avoid double-caching. Memcached is for dynamic web sites where pages are built so slow from backend systems that the request rate exceed it. As it is for pages and objects in a web server, I don't see a reason for using it with Elasticsearch. But, if you do things wrong, you can force Elasticsearch queries to become slow in your app, so you need tricks to satisy high query rates, as with every other search engine or backend, too. In most cases, caching results of badly designed queries should not be preferred because it does not solve the real problem. Best regards, Jörg On Thursday, August 9, 2012 9:59:58 PM UTC+2, curious wrote: > Is it a good practice to use "Memcached" with ES, or would the built-in > "Node Filter Cache" provide sufficient caching? -- ---
**Author:** ![system](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/original/3X/1/a/1ac57faf039f6b580b3f104ef42a2a89e41014de.png) [@system](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/system)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2017, 3:16am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/should-memcached-be-used-with-es/8695/4 "2017-07-06T03:16:43Z")