The easy answer to the "50 gets in parallel" is to use GetAll. On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 at 09:54, Igor Sapego <isap...@apache.org> wrote:
> 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 >> >
