ignite-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Is invokeAll() considered a batch operation?
Date Wed, 02 Sep 2015 23:41:21 GMT
Thanks, Alexey! This is very useful.

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> wrote:

> I have just confirmed by running a benchmark on a cluster that invokeAll
> in ATOMIC cache does NOT linearly increase latency because we do send all
> updates at once. Here are my results:
>
> Batch size    Latency (ns)
> 1             459,957.47
> 2             497,306.94
> 4             494,442.05
> 8             507,194.52
> 16            555,202.75
> 32            643,215.03
>
> If you are using a TRANSACTIONAL cache, you will probably end up in a
> situation when each next key travels to a separate node that would explain
> the behavior you see. Note that Ignite cannot change the order of lock
> acquisition for TRANSACTIONAL cache in order to avoid deadlocks. To improve
> performance in this case, you need to group keys by partition so that
> maximum number of keys is sent to a node at one network hop.
>
> 2015-09-02 6:44 GMT-07:00 javadevmtl <java.dev.mtl@gmail.com>:
>
>> Just curious are you guys looking at what Yakov suggested about the
>> mapping
>> to 1 event?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Is-invokeAll-considered-a-batch-operation-tp1220p1257.html
>> Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>
>

Mime
View raw message