Re: Use message selectors against messages on disk
Hi Christian, Hi Tim, ceposta wrote > Message selectors are applied to messages cached in memory, not on disk. Does this also apply to the JMSXMessageGroupID which has some special meaning and therefore handling? If a client consumes messages of a dedicated group, the broker will only dispatch those paged in in memory? Does the broker take care of paging in the next messages of this group if there are any as long as the client is connected? Or is a scenario possible where the client does not get more messages and then disconnects leaving messages for this group on disk? Thanks, Tom -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Use-message-selectors-against-messages-on-disk-tp4681095p4681226.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Use message selectors against messages on disk
Message selectors are applied to messages cached in memory, not on disk. On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Benjamin Jansen wrote: > Hello, > > In ActiveMQ 5.x (I have tried 5.6.0 and 5.9.1), is it possible to use JMS > message selectors against in-flight messages that have been put on disk? > Based on my experimentation, it appears not, but I wanted to double-check, > since I've found conflicting information on the Web. > > A comment on a blog post describing this behavior, claims that it has been > fixed: http://bit.ly/1sJpdw4 > > OTOH, this issue seems to indicate that it will never be fixed in AMQ: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2217 > > Thanks for any insight. > > - Ben Jansen > -- Christian Posta http://www.christianposta.com/blog twitter: @christianposta
Re: Use message selectors against messages on disk
On 05/13/2014 12:28 PM, Benjamin Jansen wrote: Hello, In ActiveMQ 5.x (I have tried 5.6.0 and 5.9.1), is it possible to use JMS message selectors against in-flight messages that have been put on disk? Based on my experimentation, it appears not, but I wanted to double-check, since I've found conflicting information on the Web. A comment on a blog post describing this behavior, claims that it has been fixed: http://bit.ly/1sJpdw4 OTOH, this issue seems to indicate that it will never be fixed in AMQ: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2217 Thanks for any insight. - Ben Jansen You can only use a selector against those messages that are paged in, so if you can tolerate greater memory usage you can increase the max page size for that destination in order to have more in memory messages. http://activemq.apache.org/per-destination-policies.html -- Tim Bish Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc. tim.b...@redhat.com | www.fusesource.com | www.redhat.com skype: tabish121 | twitter: @tabish121 blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
Re: Use message selectors against messages on disk
Using selector should work regardless if the message is on disk or in memory.. If it's not then it's a bug. Do you have a test case showing it's broken? On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Benjamin Jansen wrote: > Hello, > > In ActiveMQ 5.x (I have tried 5.6.0 and 5.9.1), is it possible to use JMS > message selectors against in-flight messages that have been put on disk? > Based on my experimentation, it appears not, but I wanted to double-check, > since I've found conflicting information on the Web. > > A comment on a blog post describing this behavior, claims that it has been > fixed: http://bit.ly/1sJpdw4 > > OTOH, this issue seems to indicate that it will never be fixed in AMQ: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2217 > > Thanks for any insight. > > - Ben Jansen > -- Hiram Chirino Engineering | Red Hat, Inc. hchir...@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Use message selectors against messages on disk
Hello, In ActiveMQ 5.x (I have tried 5.6.0 and 5.9.1), is it possible to use JMS message selectors against in-flight messages that have been put on disk? Based on my experimentation, it appears not, but I wanted to double-check, since I've found conflicting information on the Web. A comment on a blog post describing this behavior, claims that it has been fixed: http://bit.ly/1sJpdw4 OTOH, this issue seems to indicate that it will never be fixed in AMQ: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-2217 Thanks for any insight. - Ben Jansen
