Return-Path: 
 <user-return-2491-apmail-ignite-user-archive=ignite.apache.org@ignite.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-ignite-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-ignite-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B268918D44
	for <apmail-ignite-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org>;
 Thu, 28 Jan 2016 08:29:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 51699 invoked by uid 500); 28 Jan 2016 08:29:59 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-ignite-user-archive@ignite.apache.org
Received: (qmail 51654 invoked by uid 500); 28 Jan 2016 08:29:59 -0000
Mailing-List: contact user-help@ignite.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:user-help@ignite.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:user-unsubscribe@ignite.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:user@ignite.apache.org>
List-Id: <user.ignite.apache.org>
Reply-To: user@ignite.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list user@ignite.apache.org
Received: (qmail 51645 invoked by uid 99); 28 Jan 2016 08:29:59 -0000
Received: from mail-relay.apache.org (HELO mail-relay.apache.org)
 (140.211.11.15)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 08:29:59 +0000
Received: from mail-ob0-f178.google.com (mail-ob0-f178.google.com
 [209.85.214.178])
	by mail-relay.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mail-relay.apache.org) with
 ESMTPSA id 36DAC1A04D6
	for <user@ignite.apache.org>; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 08:29:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ob0-f178.google.com with SMTP id is5so29693303obc.0
        for <user@ignite.apache.org>; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 00:29:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Gm-Message-State: 
 AG10YOQEMkeAHlYsJKG9tvqHTqW/9xo8RhttSICmIE7MZWpXUMO4etgFR8MM8lwSWnGWK2RGYUn2/x0CBTsHkTSA
X-Received: by 10.182.60.170 with SMTP id i10mr1141837obr.62.1453969798051;
 Thu, 28 Jan 2016 00:29:58 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.202.71.68 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 00:29:18 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1453964975774-2751.post@n6.nabble.com>
References: <1453792131288-2715.post@n6.nabble.com>
 <1453792759683-2716.post@n6.nabble.com>
 <1453796396982-2718.post@n6.nabble.com>
 <1453835664319-2727.post@n6.nabble.com>
 <1453878938319-2734.post@n6.nabble.com> <56A8B138.7090708@gridgain.com>
 <1453898306808-2742.post@n6.nabble.com> <56A8C18B.5090003@gridgain.com>
 <1453901675908-2745.post@n6.nabble.com>
 <CA+0=VoXOJRQb=O2E0jJ7w6D23kePARxkWGTHHyFOBvf_mXRO9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <1453964975774-2751.post@n6.nabble.com>
From: Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 00:29:18 -0800
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: 
 <CA+0=VoXU=aS=XQgYecn11RLSNVeKw-C2tAcU1mHeRf7334Ao0g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: 
 <CA+0=VoXU=aS=XQgYecn11RLSNVeKw-C2tAcU1mHeRf7334Ao0g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Sql query performance with partitioned caches
To: user <user@ignite.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1bd4253e5ed052a60b9c5

--001a11c1bd4253e5ed052a60b9c5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 11:09 PM, Andrey Nestrogaev <
a.nestrogaev@flexsoft.com> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> "use Ignite exactly for OLTP workloads"
> I mean SQL OLTP workloads.
> I have no doubt that the OLTP workloads using direct cache API calls ignite
> scales perfectly.
>

I also meant SQL.


> But not to argue in vain, I will use the well-tested method - benchmarking.
>

We use Yardstick framework for benchmarking. You can take a look at some of
the existing benchmarks here:
https://ignite.apache.org/benchmarks/ignite-vs-hazelcast.html


>
> Thank you for your responses.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Sql-query-performance-with-partitioned-caches-tp2700p2751.html
> Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

--001a11c1bd4253e5ed052a60b9c5
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 11:09 PM, Andrey Nestrogaev <span dir=3D"ltr">&=
lt;<a href=3D"mailto:a.nestrogaev@flexsoft.com" target=3D"_blank">a.nestrog=
aev@flexsoft.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote"=
 style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:=
rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi All,<br>
<span class=3D""><br>
&quot;use Ignite exactly for OLTP workloads&quot;<br>
</span>I mean SQL OLTP workloads.<br>
I have no doubt that the OLTP workloads using direct cache API calls ignite=
<br>
scales perfectly.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I also meant SQL. =C2=
=A0</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0=
px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);b=
order-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
But not to argue in vain, I will use the well-tested method - benchmarking.=
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>We use Yardstick framework for benchma=
rking. You can take a look at some of the existing benchmarks here:=C2=A0<a=
 href=3D"https://ignite.apache.org/benchmarks/ignite-vs-hazelcast.html">htt=
ps://ignite.apache.org/benchmarks/ignite-vs-hazelcast.html</a></div><div>=
=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0=
.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-s=
tyle:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Thank you for your responses.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
View this message in context: <a href=3D"http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x=
6.nabble.com/Sql-query-performance-with-partitioned-caches-tp2700p2751.html=
" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.=
nabble.com/Sql-query-performance-with-partitioned-caches-tp2700p2751.html</=
a><br>
<div class=3D""><div class=3D"h5">Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing=
 list archive at Nabble.com.<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>

--001a11c1bd4253e5ed052a60b9c5--