You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to user@ignite.apache.org by GB <ga...@gmail.com> on 2016/12/08 15:15:59 UTC

Re: AtomicSequence not performing well with 2 nodes cluster set up

Hi,
What if we create an ignite cache having "SeqId" and increment its value
using EntryProcessor whenever we want to generate next sequence, not sure if
that can be faster? 
Something like :

 int nxtInSeq = configCache.invoke(KEY_PMT_ID_COUNTER, new
CounterEntryProcessor());



--
View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/AtomicSequence-not-performing-well-with-2-nodes-cluster-set-up-tp9208p9449.html
Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: AtomicSequence not performing well with 2 nodes cluster set up

Posted by Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>.

GB, I am not sure if you see any difference since you will be updating the
same cache entry which does not scale much. Sequence and IgniteAtomicLong
work exactly in the same way.

--Yakov

2016-12-08 22:15 GMT+07:00 GB <ga...@gmail.com>:

> Hi,
> What if we create an ignite cache having "SeqId" and increment its value
> using EntryProcessor whenever we want to generate next sequence, not sure
> if
> that can be faster?
> Something like :
>
>  int nxtInSeq = configCache.invoke(KEY_PMT_ID_COUNTER, new
> CounterEntryProcessor());
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.
> 70518.x6.nabble.com/AtomicSequence-not-performing-
> well-with-2-nodes-cluster-set-up-tp9208p9449.html
> Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>