I've not come across a case where we used multiple tables per cache and generally advise against it. Because it is allowed I have though witnessed cases where users at an early stage use one cache for multiple entities and ended up confused. From a users stand point I would agree with Vlad to remove this.
C. > On 19 Apr 2017, at 21:32, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com> wrote: > > Folks, > > Currently we allow multiple SQL tables per cache. This considered a bad > practice as single cache is getting polluted with unrelated key-value pairs. > > Earlier this use case made sense due to high per-cache overhead and some > limitation of FairAffinityFunction which cannot guarantee equal partition > distribution. AFAIK both issues are resolved. > > I think we have no reason to allow multiple tables per cache at the moment. > If we restrict it to one table we will be able to simplify significantly > query engine internals and improve performance a bit. Also it aligns nicely > with upcoming CREATE TABLE feature. > > What do you think about this change? > > Vladimir.
