On Jan 27, 2014, at 2:02 PM, Pedro Ruivo <pedro(a)infinispan.org> wrote:
On 01/27/2014 01:38 PM, Dan Berindei wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Pedro Ruivo <pedro(a)infinispan.org
> <mailto:pedro@infinispan.org>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 01/27/2014 12:26 PM, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
>> I'd be curious to see performance tests on Pedro's approach (ie walk
>> through the entire data key set to find the matching elements of
> a given
>> group). That might be fast enough but that looks quite scary
> compared to
>> a single lookup.
>
> I would prefer to have a performance hit than a map of sets (group name
> => set of keys). I also think that keep this map synchronized with the
> keys in data container will not be easy...
>
>
> Sure, I would prefer the simpler implementation as well. But if changing
> an application to use groups instead of atomic maps will change the
> processing time of a request from 1ms to 1s, I'm pretty sure users will
> prefer to keep use the atomic maps :)
you don't need to change the application. we can implement the
AtomicHashMap interface on top of grouping :D
I'm expecting a negative performance impact but not that high. Also,
with the current implementation, FGAHM performs a copy for writing...
anyway, we should test and see how it goes :)
+1. We can keep both around for a while and only drop FGAM iff grouping does the job
right.
Cheers,
--
Mircea Markus
Infinispan lead (
www.infinispan.org)