[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SAMZA-256?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14048385#comment-14048385
]
Chris Riccomini commented on SAMZA-256:
---------------------------------------
bq. Personally, I'm biased towards option (ii) since the existing jobs don't
need to change their configs (and we default to LevelDB). What do you guys
think ?
If we went the (1) approach, we could retain backwards compatibility by keeping
the KeyValueStorageEngineFactory around, marking @Deprecated, and having it
continue to use the LevelDB impl for some time. Again, not sure if this is
better or not.
> Provide in-memory data store implementation
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SAMZA-256
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SAMZA-256
> Project: Samza
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: kv
> Affects Versions: 0.6.0
> Reporter: Jakob Homan
> Assignee: Chinmay Soman
> Fix For: 0.8.0
>
>
> The sole current kv store, LevelDbKeyValueStore, works well when the amount
> of data to be stored is prohibitively large to keep it all in memory.
> However, in cases where the state is small enough to comfortably fit in
> whatever memory is available, it would be better to provide an in-memory
> implementation. This can be backed by either a native Java class, or perhaps
> a Guava class, if that is found to scale better (or, of course, the backing
> implementation could be configurable).
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
