It doesn't seem to apply in this case. The code that manages UpdateTimestampCache is in NHibernate core code. I think that this case might apply in other distributed cache with local cache as well.
On Jun 15, 10:34 pm, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> wrote: > NH has its own transactional protection cache behaviour but you can override > it, under your "risk", in various way. > An example for QueryCache is available > herehttp://fabiomaulo.blogspot.com/2009/04/tuning-nhibernate-tolerant-que... > > 2009/6/15 Nat <[email protected]> > > > > > Hi, > > > After I tried to use cache with Velocity, it seems that tuyrning on > > cache gives poor performance. After digging down, I found that > > UpdateTimestampCache has a lot of cache miss because Hibernate/ > > NHibernate check if timestamp doesn't exist in cache, then it means > > cache is up to date. This, however, in the distributed cache scenario, > > has pretty high cost. Instead of checking just local cache, it has to > > go through remote caches to check the item. Does it make sense to put > > an item in the cache to avoid cache miss issue instead of not putting > > timestamp at all? > > -- > Fabio Maulo --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nhusers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nhusers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
