Hello! 1. I don't think that AffinityKeyMapped is deprecated, but there are cases when it is ignored :( You can use affinity_key clause in CREATE TABLE ... WITH. 2. If it's the same node for all keys, all processing will happen on that node. 3. It depends on what you are trying to do. 4. I don't think you can since you're not supposed to.
Regards, -- Ilya Kasnacheev пн, 12 окт. 2020 г. в 14:04, ssansoy <s.san...@cmcmarkets.com>: > Thanks, this is what I have ended up doing. However, it looks like > AffinityKeyMapper is deprecated? > I am adding an implementation of this (which returns the binary typename of > the key BinaryObject) - and this does seem to have the desired effect (e.g. > all keys with the same typename are marked as primary on a single node). I > set this implementing class on the cache configuration. > > I don't think I can use the suggested @AffinityKeyMapped annotation because > we don't have a type representing the key that we can add this to. Our > caches are created via table creation DDL with: > > WITH "TEMPLATE=MY_TEMPLATE,value_type=SOME_TABLE_TYPE, > key_type=SOME_TABLE_KEY" > > The value and keys we operate on are all BinaryObjects. > > In terms of design, we have to have some sort of expectation of > transactional safety. E.g. a user can update 2 records in a cache (e.g. > some > calculation inputs) which need to both be seen at the same time in order > execute logic as they are updated. > > Could you please advise if: > > 1. There is an alternative to the deprecated AffinityKeyMapper we should be > using instead? > 2. What side effects there might be to having all keys marked as primary on > a single node (even though the caches are marked as REPLICATED). > 3. If there is any other more robust way of achieving this? > 4. How we can tune the locallisten thread to be single threaded for a > particular query. We want to eliminate any chance of a locallisten being > hit > in parallel for updates to the same cache (ideally without implementing our > own synchronization). This seemed to happen in practice for singular > updates > on the cluster happening concurrently, but after setting the pageSize and > timeInterval - these 3 updates from the 3 nodes seemed to come in > concurrently. > > > > > > -- > Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/ >
