This seems to be correct behavior. When you read a value through near cache for the first time, you actually create a new entry in near cache and also add a reader on the server node (basically it's a node ID that server node uses to update near cache when value is changed). So near cache does provide overhead and I believe that it would be too expensive to do the same for values which do not exist at all (technically should be possible though).
This can cause a problem only if you have too many cache misses, which most likely means some kind of design issue in your application. Or at least you don't need near cache as it is not going to help a lot in this case. -Val -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Client-near-cache-with-Apache-Flink-tp11627p11833.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
