Issue of ignite run in docker

I wish ignite run in docker and share data between different computer. First I use default bridge network and "export port" by docker parameter "-p 47500-47509:47500:47509". But it seem not work. So I decide to use overlay network. I referent docker official document to build docker overlay

Re: Simulating Graph Dependencies With Ignite

Of course you can store result of recalculation in the temp variable if it's needed for next recalculation. 2016-05-27 18:34 GMT+03:00 Alexei Scherbakov : > Hi, > > You can store cell dependencies as Ignite's data grid of > > IgniteCache cells = ... > >

Re: Simulating Graph Dependencies With Ignite

Hi, You can store cell dependencies as Ignite's data grid of IgniteCache cells = ... where relation between key and value is interpreted like: value depends on key. When the cell is updated you do the following: Cell cell = updated; do { recalculate(cell); } while( (cell =

Re: Unexpected performance issue with SQL query followed by error

I have exactly same indexes. Do you see created indexes in H2 console under corresponding tables? 2016-05-27 16:39 GMT+03:00 jan.swaelens : > Okey so we can indeed conclude that the indexes are not registered. This is > the output: > > /SELECT > ACTIVITY0.ACTIVITY_ID,

Simulating Graph Dependencies With Ignite

Hello, I have started exploring apache ignite by following the introductory videos. It looks quite promising and I wanted to understand if it will be well suited for the use case I brief out below. If so, I would be glad to hear out on how could I approach it The use case is We are trying to

Re: Unexpected performance issue with SQL query followed by error

Okey so we can indeed conclude that the indexes are not registered. This is the output: /SELECT ACTIVITY0.ACTIVITY_ID, ACTIVITYUSERACCOUNTROLE0.ACTIVITY_ID FROM "Activity".ACTIVITY ACTIVITY0 /* "Activity".ACTIVITY.__SCAN_ */ LEFT OUTER JOIN "Activity".ACTIVITYUSERACCOUNTROLE

Re: Unexpected performance issue with SQL query followed by error

EXPLAIN SELECT activity0._VAL , activityuseraccountrole0 ._VAL FROM "activity".ACTIVITY activity0 LEFT OUTER JOIN "activityuseraccountrole".ACTIVITYUSERACCOUNTROLE activityuseraccountrole0 ON activity0.activityId=activityuseraccountrole0.activityId; will show query execution plan without

Re: Unexpected performance issue with SQL query followed by error

Hello, Yes indeed, I am using those classes. Can I verify in the H2 console that the indexes are there as expected? br jan -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Unexpected-performance-issue-with-SQL-query-followed-by-error-tp4726p5279.html Sent from

Re: Affinity Key Mapping

Number of partition does not affect the performance of the transaction. In general changing the number of partitions is done to evenly distribute data over nodes. On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 12:06 PM, amitpa wrote: > Hey , many thanks for the quick and awesome response. I

Re: MArshaller question

Thanks. -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/MArshaller-question-tp5273p5277.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: MArshaller question

Hi, The BinaryMarshaller (which is used by default ) is optimal. 2016-05-27 12:11 GMT+03:00 amitpa : > Sorry for polluting the mailing list with sometimes useless questions. > > Which is the recommended marshaller for ignite now:- > > Binary Marshaller, JDkMarshaller or

Re: Ignite Transaction performance

I am creating the test cases. I saw that doing inserts increase the latency severely. I have a question does Ignite treat inserts the same as updates ? My isolation level is OPTIMISTIC with serializable -- View this message in context:

MArshaller question

Sorry for polluting the mailing list with sometimes useless questions. Which is the recommended marshaller for ignite now:- Binary Marshaller, JDkMarshaller or OptimizedMarshaller purely from performance standpoints -- View this message in context:

Re: Affinity Key Mapping

Hey , many thanks for the quick and awesome response. I have an idea now about how to use Affinity mapping. The doc is clear now. I will ask some questions later on about Affinity mapping. But does increasing partitions for a cache help with Transaction performance? I am struggling to increase

Re: write behind question

Hello, Oh, I incorrectly understood you. You can look at Write-Through[1]. This means that every path to the cache will be written to the vault (synchronously). In addition, you can perform SQL directly on Ignite[2]. 1. https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/persistent-store 2.

Re: write behind question

Hello, I think you need to use Ignite Cache.load Cache(). See the article: https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/data-loading On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 6:33 AM, Zhengqingzheng wrote: > Hi there, > > I have one scenario that I need to make sure changes inside the cache

Re: Affinity Key Mapping

Hello, >> From the example it doesnt appear that we can put it in different caches. Yes, from the example in Java is not clear, but see example on Scala. This should work well (in different caches), it clear from implementation. >> how does Ignite figure out colocation in that case? Ignite does

Re: Unexpected performance issue with SQL query followed by error

Hello, This one has been running for 10 minutes now without producing results - so rather the join. /EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT DISTINCT * FROM "Activity".activity activity0 LEFT OUTER JOIN "Activity".activityuseraccountrole activityuseraccountrole0 ON