Re: Continuous query order on transactional cache

listening to a transactional > cache, what order will I receive the notifications if say 5 updates are > committed in a single transaction? > > Is the order: > A) Undefined > B) The order the cache updates are written to the cache prior to the commit > C) Another order? > > Than

Continuous query order on transactional cache

Hi, If I have a continuous query running and it's listening to a transactional cache, what order will I receive the notifications if say 5 updates are committed in a single transaction? Is the order: A) Undefined B) The order the cache updates are written to the cache prior to the commit C

Re: Transactional cache in Atomic mode

Hi Mikhail, Thank you for your response. 1) From my testing, a ScanQuery of 1 million entries in an explicit transaction (with PESSIMISTIC, SERIALIZABLE) took 10 minutes single-threaded, whereas implicit transaction took 1 minute with the same environment and single-threaded. If we assume that

Re: Transactional cache in Atomic mode

Hi Mikhail, Thanks for your answer. 1) So if Ignite implicitly puts each cache update in a transaction, does that mean it's just better performance-wise to wrap 100k updates in a transaction (We found that 100k was the optimal number of updates to do in a single transaction) than to not

Re: Transactional cache in Atomic mode

Hi >1) you can do all operations on transaction caches without defining an explicit transaction. However, even if you don't start transaction and for example put some data in transactional cache, ignite itself will make implicit transaction, so transactionCache.put("key", "valu

Transactional cache in Atomic mode

Hi, Two questions about transactionality and locking: 1) I've been looking at https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/transactions and couldn't get a clear answer from the Ignite documentation so I hope to get an answer here. All of the caches we use are set to TRANSACTIONAL, as we will often need

Re: Transactional cache

Hi, Ignite keeps Tx cached values on-heap. Thanks! -Dmitry -- Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/

Transactional cache

Hi, When ignite transaction is started, it keeps the cache updates in temp cache. Does ignite keeps this temp cache in Off heap space? Thanks, Prasad

Re: CacheStore handles persistence in client node for transactional cache

-- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/CacheStore-handles-persistence-in-client-node-for-transactional-cache-tp3428p3569.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: CacheStore handles persistence in client node for transactional cache

cache store configured, it's possible that cache entry write may fail, but change will still be propagated? -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/CacheStore-handles-persistence-in-client-node-for-transactional-cache-tp3428p3566.html Sent from the Apache

Re: CacheStore handles persistence in client node for transactional cache

Makes sense, thanks. Kamil -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/CacheStore-handles-persistence-in-client-node-for-transactional-cache-tp3428p3575.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: CacheStore handles persistence in client node for transactional cache

Hi Kamil, By default TRANSACTIONAL cache invokes store from the node where transaction is started. If this is a client node, then store will be invoked from client. This is done on purpose to allow for transactional writes to store. ATOMIC cache, to the contrast, do not give any transactional

CacheStore handles persistence in client node for transactional cache

Hi, We configured partitioned, transactional cache with server and client nodes and CacheStore which handles write-through persistence. It seems that, however, in such model persistence logic (i.e. CacheStore.write() methods) can be invoked in client node for certain scenarios. After browsing

Re: CacheEntryProcessor failing on transactional cache

Yes, if tx.commit() rethrows the exception, that'll be perfect. -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/CacheEntryProcessor-failing-on-transactional-cache-tp1501p1505.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: CacheEntryProcessor failing on transactional cache

: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/CacheEntryProcessor-failing-on-transactional-cache-tp1501p1504.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.