Token Lab검색

← 모든 실험
요청 캐시와 TTL / 1 OF 5

지역성 기준

Repeated keys can avoid repeated model work.

로컬 계산 / 시뮬레이션

외부 API 없는 로컬 교육용 실험입니다. 합성 데이터는 운영 환경 측정이 아닙니다.

Study guide & lesson outlineLEARNING CONTRACT

Understand → implement → investigate

Goal: explain the mechanism in this lesson, reproduce one example and test a failure case. Reading alone does not mark mastery.

02 · 예측 및 설정

기술 설명, 매개변수 이름과 참고 답변은 현재 영어입니다.

03 · 근거 확인

실행하면 결과가 표시됩니다.

방법과 참고 문헌

Exact-key LRU simulation. TTL starts on insertion and does not refresh on hits. Expired entries are removed before each request. Assumes stable outputs within TTL. A real cache key should include tenant, model/version, prompt and generation settings; this lab uses letters.

Text / 原始公式
hit rate=hits/requests; cost=misses×costPerMiss; mean latency=(hits×hitMs+misses×missMs)/requests

Cross-tenant key reuse can expose private data; stale cached answers may be incorrect.

Redis · eviction and TTL policies ↗

연습 문제

cache-1 / 01What does “Locality baseline” test?

Repeated keys can avoid repeated model work.

Original teaching answer / local derivation. Method reference: Redis · eviction and TTL policies ↗

실험 열기 →
cache-1 / 02Which computation produces the result in “Locality baseline”?

hit ; ×costPerMiss; mean ×hitMs+misses×missMs)/requests

Original teaching answer / local derivation. Method reference: Redis · eviction and TTL policies ↗

실험 열기 →
cache-1 / 03What is the baseline configuration for “Locality baseline”?

{"keys":"A,B,A,C,A,B,D,A","capacity":3,"ttl":60,"interval":1,"cost":0.01,"missMs":1000,"hitMs":10}

Original teaching answer / local derivation. Method reference: Redis · eviction and TTL policies ↗

실험 열기 →
cache-1 / 04What numerical result should you check for “Locality baseline”?

{"Hit rate":0.5,"Misses":4,"Cost USD":0.04,"Mean latency (ms)":505}

Original teaching answer / local derivation. Method reference: Redis · eviction and TTL policies ↗

실험 열기 →
cache-1 / 05How would you run a controlled comparison for “Locality baseline”?

Keep the supplied fixture and other settings fixed; change capacity. Inspect hit/miss trace, eviction order, cost and mean latency.

Original teaching answer / local derivation. Method reference: Redis · eviction and TTL policies ↗

실험 열기 →
cache-1 / 06What failure could invalidate a conclusion from “Locality baseline”?

Cross-tenant key reuse can expose private data; stale cached answers may be incorrect.

Original teaching answer / local derivation. Method reference: Redis · eviction and TTL policies ↗

실험 열기 →
cache-1 / 07Is “Locality baseline” a benchmark of a deployed language model?

No. Exact-key LRU simulation. TTL starts on insertion and does not refresh on hits. Expired entries are removed before each request. Assumes stable outputs within TTL. A real cache key should include tenant, model/version, prompt and generation settings; this lab uses letters.

Original teaching answer / local derivation. Method reference: Redis · eviction and TTL policies ↗

실험 열기 →
cache-1 / 08Which evidence should you report for “Locality baseline”?

Inspect hit/miss trace, eviction order, cost and mean latency. Export inputs, engine, result and method; distinguish synthetic fixtures from observed production data.

Original teaching answer / local derivation. Method reference: Redis · eviction and TTL policies ↗

실험 열기 →
cache-1 / 09How can another researcher reproduce “Locality baseline”?

Open cache-1, reset the preset, retain the exact inputs and run. The calculation is deterministic for identical inputs.

Original teaching answer / local derivation. Method reference: Redis · eviction and TTL policies ↗

실험 열기 →
cache-1 / 10What is the next validation step after “Locality baseline”?

Cross-tenant key reuse can expose private data; stale cached answers may be incorrect. Test the hypothesis on a representative held-out workload and document a baseline, success metric and stopping rule before claiming deployment readiness.

Original teaching answer / local derivation. Method reference: Redis · eviction and TTL policies ↗

실험 열기 →
MATHEMATICAL REVIEW · 2026-10-26

Assumptions, implementation & acceptance

TTL starts at insertion and is not refreshed on a hit. LRU order does refresh. Request keys share one synthetic namespace; production keys must include model, parameters and authorization scope.

Engine formulas, scenario presets and numerical safeguards reviewed. Seeded synthetic inputs are not a production benchmark.

Key + request timestamp → Expire by insertion-time TTL → Hit: refresh LRU; miss: insert → Evict oldest → count costs
Mechanism map: follow the transformations from top to bottom.

Before running: predict a boundary case

Repeated keys can avoid repeated model work.

Hint: isolate the assumption

Keep the baseline input fixed, change one parameter or boundary, and compare both the numerical result and the claimed units. A passing example verifies this fixture only.

Minimal executable example

Save the example and linked modules in one folder. Use Node.js 22 or newer, then run node cache-1.mjs. No third-party runtime dependencies.

import {calculate,network} from './academy-core.mjs';
const params={
  "keys": "A,B,A,C,A,B,D,A",
  "capacity": 3,
  "ttl": 60,
  "interval": 1,
  "cost": 0.01,
  "missMs": 1000,
  "hitMs": 10
};
const result=calculate('cache',params);
console.log(result.metrics);

Test and transfer

Repeated keys can avoid repeated model work.

Record input, code version, expected result and observed result in the notebook below. Then construct a counterexample that violates the assumption above and explain why the original conclusion no longer follows.

Download complete kit (.tar.gz) · Complete reference kit and regression checks

Predict, test and keep evidence

Before revealing an answer, predict one result. After the exercise, record the discrepancy and a transfer test. Saved locally across language editions.

Open notebook / export / clear →

The mathematical review scope is recorded per lesson. It does not establish empirical paper reproduction; report suspected errors in your notes. Review scope