Thanks, Alexey! This is very useful. On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Alexey Goncharuk <[email protected] > wrote:
> I have just confirmed by running a benchmark on a cluster that invokeAll > in ATOMIC cache does NOT linearly increase latency because we do send all > updates at once. Here are my results: > > Batch size Latency (ns) > 1 459,957.47 > 2 497,306.94 > 4 494,442.05 > 8 507,194.52 > 16 555,202.75 > 32 643,215.03 > > If you are using a TRANSACTIONAL cache, you will probably end up in a > situation when each next key travels to a separate node that would explain > the behavior you see. Note that Ignite cannot change the order of lock > acquisition for TRANSACTIONAL cache in order to avoid deadlocks. To improve > performance in this case, you need to group keys by partition so that > maximum number of keys is sent to a node at one network hop. > > 2015-09-02 6:44 GMT-07:00 javadevmtl <[email protected]>: > >> Just curious are you guys looking at what Yakov suggested about the >> mapping >> to 1 event? >> >> Thanks >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Is-invokeAll-considered-a-batch-operation-tp1220p1257.html >> Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> > >
