Alexey Goncharuk created IGNITE-3469:
Summary: Get rid of deprecated APIs and entities
Key: IGNITE-3469
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3469
Project: Ignite
Issue Type:
Agree, indexes consume CPU, but as shown in the table,
performance for index and CacheMode=LOCAL more then 2x.
CacheMode.CacheMode + TRANSACTIONAL = 45 K op./sec
CacheMode.CacheMode + TRANSACTIONAL + setIndexedTypes = 107 K op./sec
CacheMode.CacheMode + ATOMIC= 340 K op./sec
Andrey, the values clearly don’t make sense, which means that the test was
conducted incorrectly. I would rerun it.
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Andrey Velichko
wrote:
> Agree, indexes consume CPU, but as shown in the table,
> performance for index and
I would add new event like UnhandledExceptioEvent. Presently it will be used
for your scenario however in the future it can be reused for other cases.
Other thoughts?
—
Denis
> On Jul 11, 2016, at 7:26 PM, AndreyVel wrote:
>
> I have question about
WithExpiryPolicy() returns another instance of ICache with overridden
expiry policy and you should use this new instance to do the Put. So the
code should look like this:
cache.WithExpiryPolicy(new ExpiryPolicy(TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(100),
TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(100),
GitHub user alexpaschenko opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/867
Ignite 1849
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite ignite-1849
Alternatively you can review and apply
Guys,
I test below code and found the key(key1) still exists after 100
milliseconds(even longer), seems cache.WithExpiryPolicy does not work?
Can someone tell how to set ExpiryPolicy in config.xml? Thanks much!
Code snippet:
public static void WriteTestCache(IIgnite ignite)
Alexey Goncharuk created IGNITE-3471:
Summary: Do not send previous value to client node for invoke()
when possible
Key: IGNITE-3471
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3471
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Denis Magda wrote:
> Personally, I don’t get why we need to have specific timeout related
> exceptions. My preferences is to stop this practice starting from
> IgniteDataStreamer and create generic TimeoutException that can be used by
> the
Dmitriy,
I have added the description of changes in the JIRA ticket.
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
wrote:
> Hi Vlad,
>
> Can you please list the API changes in the ticket, so others can review
> without digging in code?
>
> Thanks,
> D.
>
> On Mon,
Hi Vlad,
Can you please list the API changes in the ticket, so others can review
without digging in code?
Thanks,
D.
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Vladislav Pyatkov
wrote:
> Igniters,
>
> I have implemented timeout in DataStreamer by issue IGNITE-3055
>
Dmitriy,
I discussed that with Denis and we have decided create new Exception type
by some reasons:
1) The exception need to be unchecked (the behavior means serious problem
in grid) hence, TimeoutException will implement IgniteException (as
RintimeException).
2) Other timeout exception, which
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 08:15AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> > >
> I think you mean data center replication here. It is not an easy feature
> to
> > implement, and so far has been handled by commercial vendors of
Ksenia Rybakova created IGNITE-3465:
---
Summary: Java crash: problematic frame
org.apache.ignite.internal.binary.BinaryObjectImpl.hashCode()
Key: IGNITE-3465
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3465
Thanks Vlad.
At a high level, the changes look OK. However, I am not sure about
TimeoutException. Don’t we already have other timeout exceptions in Ignite?
Can we reuse them?
D.
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Vladislav Pyatkov
wrote:
> Dmitriy,
>
> I have added the
Personally, I don’t get why we need to have specific timeout related
exceptions. My preferences is to stop this practice starting from
IgniteDataStreamer and create generic TimeoutException that can be used by the
new features later.
—
Denis
> On Jul 12, 2016, at 2:35 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
Yup, looks like having a minor bump is totally warranted.
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:11PM, Sergi Vladykin wrote:
> Yakov,
>
> Good idea.
>
> Alexey,
>
> Why not just bump it to 1.7 as we do usually?
>
> Sergi
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Alexey Goncharuk <
>
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 08:15AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> My answers are inline…
>
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 3:04 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Sasha!
> >
> > Resending to the dev list.
> >
> > D.
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Alexandre Boudnik
Dmitriy, thank you for your time and questions, which helped me to
realize what I forget to mentioned!
See my answers inline; later I'll combine everything together to help
to the next readers :)
I put together some implementation ideas in Apache Ignite JIRA, as
promised:
Alexandre Boudnik created IGNITE-3466:
-
Summary: select * causes NoClassDefFoundError with jdbc query tools
Key: IGNITE-3466
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3466
Project: Ignite
Alexandre Boudnik created IGNITE-3467:
-
Summary: jdbc getTables() returns catalog as null
Key: IGNITE-3467
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3467
Project: Ignite
Issue
Alexandre Boudnik created IGNITE-3468:
-
Summary: Missing Primary Key flag in getColumns()
Key: IGNITE-3468
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3468
Project: Ignite
Issue
Yakov,
Is it possible to include several probably easy-to-fix bugs and
improvements; they are very annoying and they decrease the value of
the product? We're working on Apache Ignite based BI solution
accelerator, and these issues impact us.
I've opened them and I fix one and working on others.
23 matches
Mail list logo