That statement is not generic as Pavel and Igor stated, and I surprised to see that it ended up in our documentation. Removed it from there.

Sure, it's not a question that the thin client would be slower than a standard one but that was an incorrect note.


On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 6:58 AM Igor Sapego <> wrote:
+1 to Pavel

"up to 50%" may mean 0.5% for your specific use case.
Always measure your use case.

Best Regards,

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 4:29 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <> wrote:
Keep in mind that these performance numbers may be totally irrelevant for your usage patterns and workloads.
50% slowdown can occur in a very simple use case (like cache.get()) in ideal conditions,
when there is nothing else but network transfer and deserialization.

In real world use cases these network costs may become minuscule compared to the real query and processing times.

You should always measure your specific use case and decide.

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Mikael <> wrote:


It's in the documentation so why wouldn't it be true ? you have the same description at the beginning on how it works:

"The thin client simply establishes a socket connection to a standard Ignite node​ and performs all operations through that node."


Den 2018-06-13 kl. 09:54, skrev Sambhaji Sawant:

Thin client is up to 50% slower than Ignite client node