Honestly near cache for the thin client is a must for me. Implementing this is a huge performance gain.
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 5:47 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]>: >> >>> 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 <[email protected]> >>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>> 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 [email protected] < >>>>> [email protected]> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>
