What is the difference between Atomic{Reference,Long} and IgniteCache -
memory and performance wise? Which one is more efficient, again comparing
the memory usage and the overall performance.
As I can see caching could be done by utilizing the atomic instance per key,
or to use a normal cache.
What if the cache is just IgniteCache<String, String> or
IgniteCache<Integer, Integer>, would it be more beneficial to use
AtomicReference and AtomicLong per key correspondingly?
What is the main design goal and use case for the Atomic{Reference,Long}
usage? Is it designed for something relatively short lived? How do you
control the lifecycle of your Atomic instance?
Obviously, immediate advantage of using the cache, I see is the more
granular control over the cache behavior - expiry and eviction policy, near
cache, backups, to mention a few. So, when should I consider to use
AtomicReference or AtomicLong instead of IgniteCache? And when I benefit of
doing so.
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/AtomicReference-Long-vs-Cache-tp4812.html
Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
