Re: [infinispan-dev] Read Committed Distributed Cache Concerns

2013-09-23 Thread Radim Vansa
On 09/22/2013 02:57 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote: On 22 September 2013 13:22, Mircea Markus mmar...@redhat.com wrote: On 21 Sep 2013, at 23:07, Sanne Grinovero sa...@infinispan.org wrote: On 19 September 2013 18:29, Mircea Markus mmar...@redhat.com wrote: (Adding Jonathan who knows a thing or

Re: [infinispan-dev] Read Committed Distributed Cache Concerns

2013-09-23 Thread Galder Zamarreño
On Sep 22, 2013, at 2:57 PM, Sanne Grinovero sa...@infinispan.org wrote: On 22 September 2013 13:22, Mircea Markus mmar...@redhat.com wrote: On 21 Sep 2013, at 23:07, Sanne Grinovero sa...@infinispan.org wrote: On 19 September 2013 18:29, Mircea Markus mmar...@redhat.com wrote: (Adding

Re: [infinispan-dev] Read Committed Distributed Cache Concerns

2013-09-22 Thread Mircea Markus
On 21 Sep 2013, at 23:07, Sanne Grinovero sa...@infinispan.org wrote: On 19 September 2013 18:29, Mircea Markus mmar...@redhat.com wrote: (Adding Jonathan who knows a thing or two about transactions.) Given that READ_COMMITTED (RC) is less performant than REPEATABLE_READ (RR) I don't see

Re: [infinispan-dev] Read Committed Distributed Cache Concerns

2013-09-22 Thread Sanne Grinovero
On 22 September 2013 13:22, Mircea Markus mmar...@redhat.com wrote: On 21 Sep 2013, at 23:07, Sanne Grinovero sa...@infinispan.org wrote: On 19 September 2013 18:29, Mircea Markus mmar...@redhat.com wrote: (Adding Jonathan who knows a thing or two about transactions.) Given that

Re: [infinispan-dev] Read Committed Distributed Cache Concerns

2013-09-22 Thread Mircea Markus
On 22 Sep 2013, at 13:57, Sanne Grinovero sa...@infinispan.org wrote: On 22 September 2013 13:22, Mircea Markus mmar...@redhat.com wrote: On 21 Sep 2013, at 23:07, Sanne Grinovero sa...@infinispan.org wrote: On 19 September 2013 18:29, Mircea Markus mmar...@redhat.com wrote: (Adding

Re: [infinispan-dev] Read Committed Distributed Cache Concerns

2013-09-22 Thread Mircea Markus
On 22 Sep 2013, at 13:57, Sanne Grinovero sa...@infinispan.org wrote: On 22 September 2013 13:22, Mircea Markus mmar...@redhat.com wrote: On 21 Sep 2013, at 23:07, Sanne Grinovero sa...@infinispan.org wrote: On 19 September 2013 18:29, Mircea Markus mmar...@redhat.com wrote: (Adding

Re: [infinispan-dev] Read Committed Distributed Cache Concerns

2013-09-21 Thread Sanne Grinovero
On 19 September 2013 18:29, Mircea Markus mmar...@redhat.com wrote: (Adding Jonathan who knows a thing or two about transactions.) Given that READ_COMMITTED (RC) is less performant than REPEATABLE_READ (RR) I don't see any value in keeping RC around. I don't think users rely on exact RC

Re: [infinispan-dev] Read Committed Distributed Cache Concerns

2013-09-19 Thread Radim Vansa
I think that Read Committed isolation level is not obliged to present you with up-to-date committed data - the only fact is that it can, but application must not rely on that. It's lower isolation level. Nevertheless, I think that lower isolation level should mean better performance. I would be

Re: [infinispan-dev] Read Committed Distributed Cache Concerns

2013-09-19 Thread Sanne Grinovero
On 19 September 2013 09:06, Radim Vansa rva...@redhat.com wrote: I think that Read Committed isolation level is not obliged to present you with up-to-date committed data - the only fact is that it can, but application must not rely on that. It's lower isolation level. Nevertheless, I think

Re: [infinispan-dev] Read Committed Distributed Cache Concerns

2013-09-19 Thread Mircea Markus
(Adding Jonathan who knows a thing or two about transactions.) Given that READ_COMMITTED (RC) is less performant than REPEATABLE_READ (RR) I don't see any value in keeping RC around. I don't think users rely on exact RC semantics (i.e. if an entry has been committed then an ongoing tx requires