That statement is not generic as Pavel and Igor stated, and I surprised to see that it ended up in our documentation. Removed it from there.
Sure, it's not a question that the thin client would be slower than a standard one but that was an incorrect note. -- Denis On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 6:58 AM Igor Sapego <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 to Pavel > > "up to 50%" may mean 0.5% for your specific use case. > Always measure your use case. > > Best Regards, > Igor > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 4:29 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Keep in mind that these performance numbers may be totally irrelevant for >> your usage patterns and workloads. >> 50% slowdown can occur in a very simple use case (like cache.get()) in >> ideal conditions, >> when there is nothing else but network transfer and deserialization. >> >> In real world use cases these network costs may become minuscule compared >> to the real query and processing times. >> >> You should always measure your specific use case and decide. >> >> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Mikael <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi! >>> >>> It's in the documentation so why wouldn't it be true ? you have the same >>> description at the beginning on how it works: >>> >>> "The thin client simply establishes a socket connection to a standard >>> Ignite node and performs all operations through that node." >>> >>> Mikael >>> >>> Den 2018-06-13 kl. 09:54, skrev Sambhaji Sawant: >>> >>> Thin client is up to 50% slower than Ignite client node >>> >>> >>> >>
