Agree. AFAIK ATOMIC cache doesn't perform retries, does it? On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 12:12 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Vladimir, > > I think non-transactional DML should have the same guarantees as we have in > Atomic caches. Do you agree? If yes, we should discuss DML behavior in > conjunction with Atomic cache behavior. > > D. > > On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Igniters, > > > > Current implementation of DML is not transactional. We have not > guarantees > > on what is updated and what is not. When certain update fails due to > > concurrent entry change, we perform a retry. > > > > The thing is that re-try doesn't guarantee anything still and it might > > introduce subtle performance degradation in case of complex queries. > > > > As it has no value for users, I propose to drop it altogether. > Semantically > > nothing will change from user perspective as we have no guarantees. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Vladimir. > > >
