Sanjeev Vihar wrote > I am currently using an open source columnar database (infyniDB) which > works well for us because it uses a familiar mySQL coding structure. > > However we are taking no advantage of caching (particularly query-result > caching). Also none of our data tables are held in memory. I am clear > that we are missing an opportunity by not using Memory. > > Our schema is simple with a main Fact table (approx 1gb) then 2 dimension > tables. > > Our data is updated daily, but users do update the dimension tables more > regularly. This concerns me because I am concerned that the dimension > entries will become stale after a user make an update. > > I'm not asking for a pathway to adoption, but at this stage just a simple > "Yes try it" or "Try it but it's not ideal", or "This is not a great use > case for Ignite" would be so useful.
Hi Sanjeev, You use case is definitely supported by Ignite. I think the best way to implement it is to do both updates and queries using Ignite API, utilizing write-through to update database. This way you will never have any stale entries. I would recommend to take a look at documentation page about the persistent store, I beleive it can be helpful for you: https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/persistent-store Let us know if you have more questions. -Val -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/USE-CASE-question-analytics-grouping-summing-counting-tp1295p1303.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
