On 27 January 2014 09:38, Pedro Ruivo <pedro(a)infinispan.org> wrote:
On 01/27/2014 09:20 AM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> On 23 January 2014 18:03, Dan Berindei <dan.berindei(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 22 Jan 2014 16:10, "Pedro Ruivo" <pedro(a)infinispan.org>
wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01/22/2014 01:58 PM, Dan Berindei wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It would also require us to keep a Set<K> for each group, with the
keys
>>>> associated with that group. As such, I'm not sure it would be a lot
>>>> easier to implement (correctly) than FineGrainedAtomicMap.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Dan, I didn't understand why do we need to keep a Set<K>. Can you
>>> elaborate?
>>
>>
>> We'd need some way to keep track of the keys that are part of the group,
>> iterating over the entire cache for every getGroup() call would be way too
>> slow.
>
> Right, and load all entries from any CacheStore too :-/
IMO, I prefer to iterate over the data container and cache loader when
it is needed than keep the Set<K> for each group. I think the memory
will thank you
Of course. I'm just highlighting how importand Dan's comment is,
because we obviously don' t want to load everything from CacheStore.
So, tracking which entries are part of the group is essential:
failing this, I'm still skeptical about why the Grouping API is a
better replacement than FGAM.
Sanne