-
1. Re: Index replication problem with directory_provider infinispan
mgencur May 22, 2013 6:16 AM (in response to lokeshbandaru)Can you please start another thread? This is not related to the original post. Anyway, I'm not the best person to answer this question. I just think the ClusteredQuery is not yet fully functional, there are some bugs. The above seems like a bug. OTOH, there are some tests in Infinispan for clustered queries and they're passing. Maybe it's worth to search for the tests and look how they're configured.
Martin
-
2. Re: Index replication problem with directory_provider infinispan
lokeshbandaru May 22, 2013 8:46 AM (in response to mgencur)Martin, was unable to start a new thread.
Tried doing and ended up in this thread without the initial posts. Thanks for the update.
Ended up modifying the same post. Hope this is fine.
-
3. Re: Index replication problem with directory_provider infinispan
sannegrinovero May 22, 2013 9:02 AM (in response to lokeshbandaru)Hi, you should either use Clustered Queries, OR a clustered Index.
With a clustered index the same index is directly accessible on each node, making it pointless to use a clustered query. With a clustered query and independent indexes you have the benefit that each node can handle its local index updates, so indexing is easier to setup and scales better but at a cost of different behaviour during Query performance (not necessarily worse, that highly depends on the use case).
-
4. Re: Index replication problem with directory_provider infinispan
lokeshbandaru May 23, 2013 2:59 AM (in response to sannegrinovero)Hi Sanne, thanks for clarifying.
The usecase is that, Objects get added to the cache with simple primitive values/strings as keys. Each such object will have another object and that is indexed too.
For such a case, can you throw some light on how a LocalQuery with a Distributed IndexCache(numOwners will always be 2 no matter the size of cluster) fares against a ClusteredQuery with Local IndexCaches.
Two copies of a logical index entry will be present in the cluster all the time, doubling the memory that gets consumed by Indexes, but thats it. As the query happens to be a Local one, will it not be any quicker than a ClusteredQuery?
The version that I've been using is 5.2.1 and find that the ClusteredQuery api is marked as "experimental" in the corresponding javadocs.
Can you kindly suggest on its adoption?