Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1115200C1A for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 23:04:17 +0100 (CET) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 9F9ED160B60; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 22:04:17 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id E8CB4160B4A for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 23:04:16 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 43442 invoked by uid 500); 13 Feb 2017 22:04:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@ignite.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@ignite.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@ignite.apache.org Received: (qmail 43429 invoked by uid 99); 13 Feb 2017 22:04:16 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 22:04:16 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id A7E04C678C for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 22:04:15 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.173 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.173 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.972] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kG0vTDwxKZ47 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 22:04:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mbob.nabble.com (mbob.nabble.com [162.253.133.15]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTP id D1CEF5F36E for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 22:04:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from static.162.255.23.37.macminivault.com (unknown [162.255.23.37]) by mbob.nabble.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F1BB3CA269D for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 13:43:34 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 15:04:09 -0700 (MST) From: vkulichenko To: user@ignite.apache.org Message-ID: <1487023449766-10610.post@n6.nabble.com> In-Reply-To: <1486989550926-10596.post@n6.nabble.com> References: <1486623663446-10521.post@n6.nabble.com> <1486673332826-10534.post@n6.nabble.com> <1486715061426-10547.post@n6.nabble.com> <1486765344309-10555.post@n6.nabble.com> <1486989550926-10596.post@n6.nabble.com> Subject: Re: Can continuousAsyncQuery guarantee event to be processed in order? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit archived-at: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 22:04:17 -0000 Well, the ordering is actually defined only key level. I.e., if you update the same key twice, you will get notifications in proper order so that the last one corresponds to the current value in cache. Ordering between different keys does not exist as in general case they can arrive from different nodes. -Val -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Can-continuousAsyncQuery-guarantee-event-to-be-processed-in-order-tp10521p10610.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.