The detection should happen at most a couple of minutes after a record is inserted in the cache but all the detections are local to the node. But some records with the current timestamp might show up in the system with big delays.
On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 12:23 PM Denis Magda <[email protected]> wrote: > What are your requirements? Do you need to process the records as soon as > they are put into the cluster? > > > > On Friday, October 2, 2020, narges saleh <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thank you Dennis for the reply. >> From the perspective of performance/resource overhead and reliability, >> which approach is preferable? Does a continuous query based approach impose >> a lot more overhead? >> >> On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 9:52 AM Denis Magda <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Narges, >>> >>> Use continuous queries if you need to be notified in real-time, i.e. 1) >>> a record is inserted, 2) the continuous filter confirms the record's time >>> satisfies your condition, 3) the continuous queries notifies your >>> application that does require processing. >>> >>> The jobs are better for a batching use case when it's ok to process >>> records together with some delay. >>> >>> >>> - >>> Denis >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 3:50 AM narges saleh <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi All, >>>> If I want to watch for a rolling timestamp pattern in all the records >>>> that get inserted to all my caches, is it more efficient to use timer based >>>> jobs (that checks all the records in some interval) or continuous queries >>>> that locally filter on the pattern? These records can get inserted in any >>>> order and some can arrive with delays. >>>> An example is to watch for all the records whose timestamp ends in 50, >>>> if the timestamp is in the format yyyy-mm-dd hh:mi. >>>> >>>> thanks >>>> >>>> > > -- > - > Denis > >
