On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 6:51 AM, rsb wrote:
> Is there any underlaying difference between performing an;
>
> storeObject.withoutFetch().execute();
> -or-
> myBucket.store(item.key, item).execute();
>
> In other words, will my second statement result in an implicit fetch as
> well?
Bucket.store()
Thanks for clarifying that Brian.
Since I am only doing benchmarking using custom random data generators, I
agree with your statement of not worrying about siblings and related
overhead. Now, based on your answer another question comes to mind.
Is there any underlaying difference between perform
Re your last Q:
> I have read StoreObject does a read on every write, if true, can that
be disabled?
Yes. If you're not worried about creating siblings you can use the
withoutFetch() option in the StoreObject:
storeObject.withoutFetch().execute();
The StoreObject will not attempt to fetch the
Thank you for your reply, I gave that a shot and worked really well.
--
View this message in context:
http://riak-users.197444.n3.nabble.com/Best-way-to-insert-a-collection-of-items-at-once-tp4028487p4028500.html
Sent from the Riak Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Hi,
I am not familiar with the java api but in my opinion you should not compromise
on the quorums in order to gain speed, at least not in this case.
Looping through each item is the collection is slow but you can divide the
collection in 10 chunks (for example) and loop them using 10 different
