1.a. Help with what? Do you know how Spark behaves in this case and what guarantees does it provide? To be honest, I'm still struggling to understand why you don't want to use Ignite API directly for updates. Is there a use case that you tried to implement, but it didn't work for some reason?
1.b. Whether or not you need a transaction, depends on what you're trying to achieve, but on number of backups. Backups help not to lose data in case of node failures. Again, it's very hard to discuss without a particular use case in mind. 2. Ignite can't do this of course, but it sounds like you can filter the RDD first, and then map it. This way the modified RDD will be smaller and you will have less updates. -Val -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Consistency-Guarantees-Smart-Updates-with-Spark-Integration-tp10091p10121.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
