Alex, I've recently implemented .NET Native Near Cache [1]. It is a very similar concept, because caching is performed on platform side.
We had requests for this from different users for quite some time. Users were implementing this on their own with Continuous Queries. Yes, it is not transactional, but it still provides a huge speedup in many cases. Thin Client Near Cache can be based on the same mechanism. Yes, it is not a trivial feature, but neither is Partition Awareness, for example. Performance is a feature. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12691 On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 11:35 AM Alex Plehanov <plehanov.a...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I don't think that near cache for thin client on Ignite level it's a > good idea. > > Expiration is not the only case here. For thick clients near caches are > transactionally consistent. For thin clients such a guarantee never can be > provided. > Near cache for thin clients will be either too heavy (and this contradicts > thin clients paradigm) or highly specialized (in this case it's better to > implement it on user level). > > Also, sometimes many thin clients are used inside one application (inside > one JVM for java thin client). I know deployments where thin client pool > approach or client per thread approach is used. In these cases, it's better > to have one near cache for all clients than have it inside each client. > > I think it's better to provide mechanisms like event listeners or > continuous queries to make it possible to implement near caches on user > level with guarantees that best fit user's requirements. > > вт, 19 мая 2020 г. в 15:47, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>: > >> Ok, thanks for the explanation. >> Yes, this is a good feature, and I've had this in mind for some time. >> >> Ticket filed: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13037 >> There are no immediate plans, but I think there is a possibility to >> achieve this by the end of the year. >> >> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 2:52 PM Marty Jones <martybjo...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> The use case is having a local cache that stores most widely used cache >>> items in memory on server instead of having the network expense of pulling >>> them down every time they are requested. The main thing is the near cache >>> has to support removing cache items that have expired on the server. >>> >>> The best use case I have is a web application that needs a cache item >>> per request. we would not want to pull the cache item from the cluster >>> every request. It would be way more efficient for the thin client to have >>> a near cache that would hold "hot" cache items that are requested >>> frequently. >>> >>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 3:43 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Can you please describe the use case in more detail? >>>> What do you expect from such a feature? >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 2:01 AM martybjo...@gmail.com < >>>> martybjo...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I wanted to see if there are any plans to support near caches for thin >>>>> clients? I think it would be a great feature. I know I could use it right >>>>> now. >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive >>>>> <http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/> at Nabble.com. >>>>> >>>>
