I'm interested. :)
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Daniel Doubleday
wrote:
> Hi all - or rather devs
>
> we have been working on an alternative implementation to the existing row
> cache(s)
>
> We have 2 main goals:
>
> - Decrease memory -> get more rows in the cache without suffering a huge
We had a visitor from Intel a month ago.
One question from him was "What could you do if we gave you a server 2 years
from now that had 16TB of memory"
I went Eh... using Java?
2 years is maybe unrealistic, but you can already get some quite acceptable
prices even on servers in the 100GB
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Daniel Doubleday wrote:
> Hi all - or rather devs
>
> we have been working on an alternative implementation to the existing row
> cache(s)
>
> We have 2 main goals:
>
> - Decrease memory -> get more rows in the cache without suffering a huge
> performance penalty
Hi all - or rather devs
we have been working on an alternative implementation to the existing row
cache(s)
We have 2 main goals:
- Decrease memory -> get more rows in the cache without suffering a huge
performance penalty
- Reduce gc pressure
This sounds a lot like we should be using the new
