I have created a testcase that quite consistently reproduces this
problem on my mac;
https://gist.github.com/krosenvold/fa20521ad121a0cbb4c6ed6be91452e5
If you start two processes with this main method, and stagger startup
of the second process by about 10 seconds, the second process will
almost n
Hi,
I demand both read and write operations, so I chose partitioned mode cache.
When I increased my cluster by one node, I got slower reads.
Is there any way to make it faster?
Following is my Cache configuration, aim is to insert 1 million records, I am
setting the initial size to avoid delay due to resizing, as suggested in the
Apache ignite documentation, but still the first insertion takes around 14 -
15 seconds, when second time onward it is reduced to 3 - 4 sec and
Hello,
Need more detail: which task you try to solve, how you measure delay on
read and so on.
Obviously you can get networking overhead for data which stores on remote
node.
But compared to REPLECATED cache you do not waste time copying data to all
nodes on write.
Can you provide example?
On W
Following is my Poco class, my query include a set of filters on few columns,
which is facilitated using the QuerySqlField attribute, further there's
multiple column sorting, for which the fields are indexed, now my
understanding is indexing has a role only in sorting, but in this case user
can ask
Hey,
Sorry for being pedantic. But should I log this as an issue?
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Pre-Hook-before-actual-Ignite-commit-tp5679p5784.html
Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Thanks for asking.
I'm trying to get faster reads. Write is good for now.
Here's my read example. It's just testing environment.
I have two caches, Cache1 and Cache2. And preload 45,000 tips in Cache1. Put
1,000,000 tips into Cache2 to trigger continuous query in Cache1. After the
end, cons
Hi,
I suppose OrderId is unique field, right ?
If yes, what's the point in sorting on both OrderId and OrderName ?
2016-06-22 10:53 GMT+03:00 mrinalkamboj :
> Following is my Poco class, my query include a set of filters on few
> columns,
> which is facilitated using the QuerySqlField attribut
Hi,
You can create as many indexes as you want, but it will consume more memory
and hurt insert performance ([1], [2]).
As with any SQL db, you have to decide which kinds of queries need indexes
more than others.
[1] https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/sql-queries#choosing-indexes
[2] http://www.
Hello Alexei,
This operation is via user input, we don't directly control it. It may not
be efficient, but still user can do the operation.
Thanks,
Mrinal
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Multiple-column-filtering-and-sorting-in-Apache-Ignite-tp
Hello Pavel,
I understand the issue related to over indexing, but my question was if I
want to index same field for bi-directional sort, Ascending and Descending
direction, then what are my options.
Looks like, I can apply a Group Index with a single field, original index
for Ascending and group
Mrinal,
You must create group index for query like:
ordery by field1 asc, field2 desc
You can define such index using annotations or QueryEntry [1]
I prefer QueryEntry for defining complex indexes.
Don't forget to check actual index usage by issuing EXPLAIN command from
the H2 console or code.
Thanks Alexei, for Ignite.NET the link will be
https://apacheignite-net.readme.io/docs/sql-queries#configuring-sql-indexes-using-queryentity
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Alexei Scherbakov <
alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mrinal,
>
> You must create group index for query like:
> ordery
Hi,
Initial slowdown can be caused by JIT and JVM warmup, this is normal.
What are your JvmInitialMemory settings?
Pavel.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:18 AM, mrinalkamboj
wrote:
> Following is my Cache configuration, aim is to insert 1 million records, I
> am
> setting the initial size to avoid
If I fill the newly created Replicated cache with IgniteDataStreamer,
replication works as expected. If I use loadCache, the result is
arbitrary on other nodes. This has to be a bug... ??
Complete miniature easy-to-run test project at
https://github.com/krosenvold/ignite-loadCache-failure-demo, s
Hi,
Are you sure, you correct measure?
JVM need a warm-up before the code will otimizirovan.
What cluster topology:
Where is fisical machines (witn Ignite node) located?
Where is located client node (where you do benchmark)?
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Level D <724172...@qq.com> wrote:
>
Hello Pavel,
No explicit setting for JVM, it would be default
thanks,
Mrinal
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Slow-initial-Cache-Insertion-tp5781p5795.html
Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
You can try setting initial memory to a higher value.
Also, what do you mean by first and second time? When you load the data
second time, is the cache empty or not?
Can you attach the code which does both first and second insert?
Pavel.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 2:55 PM, mrinalkamboj
wrote:
> H
Second time means repeating the same insertion operation as the first time,
Cache is not empty, it contains the data of the first time, so it would
replace, I don't call Cache.Clear() explicitly
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Slow-initial-Cache-I
If you use DataStreamer, and AllowOverwrite if false (default), then the
streamer would not actually update cache entries.
That's why it runs faster on the second run.
Pavel.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 3:25 PM, mrinalkamboj
wrote:
> Second time means repeating the same insertion operation as the f
I think I came across a bug while working with binary objects in ignite
(version 1.6). The steps are
1. Create a cache with BinaryObject as the value. Add a field and a String
value in it.
2. Destroy the cache using ignite.destroyCache(c)
3. Create the same cache but this time add the same field w
Hi Denis,
Thanks for your response. I ran the benchmark test on a single VM with 8 cores
and 2Gb allocated to each server instance (member). All the tests were for
optimistic transactions with no backup and with the default JVM settings in
benchmark.properties. I see that the performance of cli
Alright then my testing was not completely fair, I need to rerun post setting
the AllowOverwrite and this would make Ignite's performance much more
realistic when compared with parallel products.
Thanks for the insight.
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble
Denis, did you get a chance to look at this?
any help will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Binti
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/transaction-not-timing-out-tp5540p5805.html
Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Happy summer, NYC (and surrounding area) Igniters!
Apache Ignite founder, Nikita Ivanov will be presenting a deep dive on
Apache Ignite at our NYC meetup, Tuesday, June 28 at Work Market, 240 W
37th St, 9th Floor, New York, NY.
Free beer, drinks and pizza will be provided.
Please RSVP on Meetu
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Blossom Coryat wrote:
> Happy summer, NYC (and surrounding area) Igniters!
>
> Apache Ignite founder, Nikita Ivanov will be presenting a deep dive on
> Apache Ignite at our NYC meetup, Tuesday, June 28 at Work Market, 240 W 37th
> St, 9th Floor, New York, NY.
>
>
Hi Team
Attached is the diagram depicting my use-case.
I want you to help me understand in what form should I deploy the
Continuous query if I want the freedom to srat and stop it on the fly.
Can I deploy it as a service? Will it then be possible for me to start and
stop a deployed service if I
Can you point me an example of what you are suggesting? Or suggest
what classes I should look at as an entry point?
thanks in advance,
Gareth
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 6:43 PM, dsetrakyan [via Apache Ignite Users]
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:00 PM, collins <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>
e.g. what to store on the primary and secondary replica. On the
primary replica the full data will be there, on the secondary replica
only summary data will be stored (as well as cached query results).
My internal memory structure included big byte array blobs (or
off-heap memory blobs) which I wi
I'm quite sure.
All machines are in the same computer room.
I run my only one client code on one of my servers.
In addition, I use ignite 1.6 and execute sql query in filter.
What does "JVM need a warm-up before the code will otimizirovan" exactly mean?
What shoulde I do about the warm-up?
Hi Igniters,
We are on 1.5.0.final and have been on it for a while. But we started seeing
this issue in production recently. We want a JVM to call System.exit() when
its done its work, but we see the below locking. This affects us badly, we
cannot kill the processes on linux with a Ctrl+C either.
I also see this when the process is stuck at system.exit, many SIGINT calls.
Name: SIGINT handler
State: BLOCKED on java.lang.Class@4debc642 owned by: main
Total blocked: 1 Total waited: 0
Stack trace:
java.lang.Shutdown.exit(Shutdown.java:212)
java.lang.Terminator$1.handle(Terminator.java:52)
32 matches
Mail list logo