-desgn-question-tp7459p7613.html
Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Thank you for the response. Does this approach make sense if we are going to
be in replicated mode. We will not be using partition mode.
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Overall-desgn-question-tp7459p7611.html
Sent from the Apache Ignite Users
-queries#cross-cache-queries
-Val
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Overall-desgn-question-tp7459p7495.html
Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
this message in context:
http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Overall-desgn-question-tp7459p7490.html
Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
be lower with the one named
cache approach just was wondering if there are any performance
considerations between the two approaches
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Overall-desgn-question-tp7459p7488.html
Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing lis
memory
consumption and you may consider merging some caches in this case.
-Val
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Overall-desgn-question-tp7459p7466.html
Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
We will be employing a data grid off heap, replication implementation. We
are estimating with the 30% index cache alllowance that we will need 7 gig
of ram per ignite server node there will be two. We have two options.
Create many smaller caches or put everything in a collection using one
