Won't it be confusing from a user stand point to have multiple data structures with the same name? Also, what is the performance impact of this change?
D. On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Semyon Boikov <sboi...@gridgain.com> wrote: > Hi Mikhail, > > As far as I remember for some reason we wanted to guarantee that all data > structures have unique names. But now I don't see why this can be needed > and it seems we do not need this data structures map at all, if nobody have > objection I think you can implement suggested change. > > Thanks! > > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Mikhail Cherkasov < > mcherka...@gridgain.com> > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > All DataStructures are stored in one Map which itself is stored in > > utilityCache, this makes high contention on DS creation or removing, it > > requires to acquire Map's lock and manipulation with the Map under the > > lock. So all threads in cluster should wait for this lock to create or > > remove DS. > > > > I don't see any reason to store all DS in one map, we already have > > utilityCache and can save DSs directly in utilityCache, to distinguish DS > > with other objects in utilityCache I use composite key, the first part of > > which is DATA_STRUCTURES_KEY, second one is DS's name, also DS type can > be > > added, this will allow us to create different DS with the same name. > > > > There is draft implementations, all DSs are stored with unique key in > > utilityCache: > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2046/files > > > > May be there's some reason to store all DS in one Map that I missed? > > Any thoughts? > > > > > > -- > > Thanks, > > Mikhail. > > >
