I agree, we should fix all the outstanding issues and resolve the performance problems before merging it into 2.0
Sergi 2016-12-29 12:37 GMT+03:00 Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncha...@gmail.com>: > Folks, > > I pushed an initial implementation of IGNITE-3477 to ignite-3477 branch for > community review and further discussion. > > Note that the implementation lacks the following features: > - On-heap deserialized values cache > - Full LOCAL cache support > - Eviction policies > - Multiple memory pools > - Distributed joins support > - Off-heap circular remove buffer > - Maybe something else I missed > > The subject of this discussion is to determine whether the PageMemory > approach is a way to go, because the this implementation is almost 2x > slower than current 2.0 branch. There is some room for improvement, but I > am not completely sure we can gain the same performance numbers as in 2.0. > > I encourage the community to review the code and architecture and share > their thoughts here. > > Thanks, > AG >
