Josemari, can you please describe the use case in more detail? Maybe it is possible to reduce the number of cache entries by combining the data from multiple keys into one?
On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 7:01 AM Zhenya Stanilovsky <arzamas...@mail.ru> wrote: > > I also confirm this issue, i will append additional info into ticket, > seems we can fix it. > jjimeno thanks for highlighting. The only work around for now — is somehow > decrease tx enlisted keys. > > > I am able to reproduce the problem - it occurs with any client, thick or > thin. > > With one node the transaction completes in a reasonable time, > but with two nodes it is orders of magnitude slower. > > We'll investigate and get back to you. > > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 9:48 AM jjimeno <jjim...@omp.com > <//e.mail.ru/compose/?mailto=mailto%3ajjim...@omp.com>> wrote: > > Hi again, > > As a test, I just disabled persistence in both nodes. The already > mentioned > transaction of 1.2 million keys and 600MB in size takes 298sec. > > Remember that for one single node and persistence enabled it takes 70sec, > so > just adding a second node makes the test more than 4 times slower. > > Is this, really, the performance that Ignite can offer? Please, don't take > me wrong, I'm just asking, not criticizing. I want to be sure I'm not > doing > anything wrong and the timings I get are the expected ones... > > Thanks! > > > > -- > Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/ > > > > > >
