1. There is no such API. Seems like a weird error in documentation. We will fix it. If you want to make 50 gets in parallel, I think it's better to run 50 clients with the current API. You can use the same client too, but it may be slower, depending on how many nodes you have in a cluster. 2. What do you mean by increments? Do you mean getting value, modifying it and putting it back? 3. Atomics are faster in most cases (ReplaceIfEquals). Yes, there is a real overhead for transactions, though how big it is depends on the transaction isolation level.
Best Regards, Igor On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 5:05 PM Louis C <l...@outlook.fr> wrote: > > Hello, > > I am trying to use/test Apache Ignite for a particular use case. For > background reference, my use case of Ignite is to do 100Ks (to begin with) > of "Gets" and of "increments" of values that will be stored in probably > multiple caches in Apache Ignite. > I read the Ignite documentation, but I couldn't figure out things in the > C++ API side. > > > 1. I have read in the documentation > > <https://ignite.apache.org/docs/latest/key-value-api/basic-cache-operations> > > <https://ignite.apache.org/docs/latest/key-value-api/basic-cache-operations>that > there is a "GetAsync" method in C++ client. But I could not find it in the > code. Is it a deprecated API ? If so, let's imagine I want to do multiple > calls in parallel (let's say 50 for instance), how can I achieve this ? Can > I just call multiple "Get"s in parallel in my threads without any problem ? > Must I create a client for each thread ? There does not seem to be anything > related to thread safety of these methods in the doc... > 2. Does doing 100K "increments" of values in a cache seem achievable > on an Ignite cluster of a single node (let's say the CPU is a last gen i7 > with 8 physical cores)? The problem that I have is that I have very good > performances (+100K "gets") using the batch methods of the Rest API, but no > batch method exist for "increments", and the overhead of each http call > cripples the performance to a few 1000s/s. What would be the "best" way of > achieving this (preferably in C++ or Rest API, but I am open to Java too )? > 3. Related but a bit different : if I want to add a value to an > existing one in the store (doing an "increment"), would it be (in general) > faster to do it using the "transaction" mode or to use the > "ReplaceIfEquals" methods (in general I do not update the same values in > the same time) ? Is there a real overhead for transactions ? > > > Thanks in advance > > Louis >
