[infinispan-dev] changes introduced by optimistic transactions

[Sanne Grinovero]

2011/8/1 Sanne Grinovero <sanne at infinispan.org>:
> Hi Mircea,
> what you propose has a strong impact on existing use cases.
>
> Not having batching kills the Lucene performance, and using
> transactions is not an option unless the whole state of the index can
> fit in memory, which is not the use case we're targeting: I need to be
> able to use both on the same Cache.
>
> Isn't it possible to have a batching implementation which doesn't rely
> on transactions, or why are you needing to add this limitation?
>
> If not, I'll have to start thinking about a different design.. not
> happy about it since we got much testing from the community and I
> would consider it quite stable now, but especially the performance
> tests are not something I can easily reproduce on my own as it implies
> big indexes, real clusters and real world use cases.
>
> What we could do, is implement batching in the Lucene Directory itself
> ( a layer above Infinispan); that could work, but then again I don't
> see why this could not be generalized and provide to everyone, keeping
> the change less traumatic.. I'm likely not the only user of this API.

Sorry, not sure what I was thinking: I just realized that I can't
possibly implement batching on a different layer.

So I have no way to workaround this other than re-designing some core concepts:
please allow batching without transactions.

Sanne