ignite-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexei Scherbakov <alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: How REPLICATED cache is more performant comparing to PARTITIONED
Date Fri, 13 May 2016 14:06:07 GMT
Hi,

Replicated cache have all entries available on the node, so reads from
REPLICATED cache are always local.

2016-05-12 23:46 GMT+03:00 zshamrock <aliaksandr.kazlou@gmail.com>:

> I have couple of caches which are initialized per system event, and then
> almost stay untouched for the next 1 or 2 hours. And only reads are used.
> First of all is it a good use case for the REPLICATED cache? Data is small,
> just int to int mapping.
>
> The main question is why REPLICATED cache behaves better for frequent reads
> comparing to PARTITIONED. As I understood from
> https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/cache-modes#replicated-mode,
> PARTITIONED
> cache with backups set to all is used underneath. Is still affinity
> collocation is in place for the REPLICATED cache? If, so it means it has to
> go to the primary server every time anyway, so no different comparing to
> REPLICATED. So, what are the factors who are giving the better read
> performance for REPLICATED cache comparing to PARTITIONED?
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/How-REPLICATED-cache-is-more-performant-comparing-to-PARTITIONED-tp4915.html
> Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>



-- 

Best regards,
Alexei Scherbakov

Mime
View raw message