[hinkley]

No.

It’s not a data layer, it’s global shared state. Global shared state always has consequences. Sometimes the consequences are worth the trouble. But it is trouble.

If you think about Source of Truth, System of Record, cache is neither of those, and sits between them. There’s a lot of problems you can fix instead by improving the SoT or SoR situation in that area if the code.

[convolvatron]

in particular, the database already _has_ a cache. usually its on the other side of the evaluation, at the block layer. which means that you have a pay a cost to get to it (the network protocol, and the evaluation).

if you use materialized views, that surfaces exactly what you want in a cache, except here the views consistency with the underlying data is maintained. that's hugely important.

that leaves us with the protocol. prepared statements might help. now we really should be about the same as the bump-on-the-wire cache. that doesn't get us the same performance is the in-process cache. but we didn't have to sacrifice any performance or add any additional operational overhead to get it.

[IgorPartola]

Hard disagree. Having used the architecture I described in large practical deployments it works way better than what you are making it out to be. But I don’t know the domain you work in and your constraints so it is possible that for you it would not work.