|  | 
 
  
    | RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support | RSS Feed - Message Broker Support |  
 
  
	|    |  |  
  
	| Stability and size of CACHED SHARED ROW | « View previous topic :: View next topic » |  
  	| 
		
		
		  | Author | Message |  
		  | yaakovd | 
			  
				|  Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 3:45 am    Post subject: Stability and size of CACHED SHARED ROW |   |  |  
		  | Partisan
 
 
 Joined: 20 Jan 2003Posts: 319
 Location: Israel
 
 | 
			  
				| Hi ALL 
 I've implemented shared cache (SHARED ROW) in my flow as following.
 
 1. some application data kept on MQ queue (can be DB, of course).
 2. if data present in cache - use it
 3. if not - use MQget to initialize cache and use it.
 
 2 questions for who experienced with shared cache:
 - if it really stable for use (multitreaded flow processes 120 message/second)
 - is there any limitation on size of cached data or impact on performance (e.g. need keep obout 400 000 rows - 10 MB of data)
 
 thanks
 _________________
 Best regards.
 Yaakov
 SWG, IBM Commerce, Israel
 |  |  
		  | Back to top |  |  
		  |  |  
		  | yaakovd | 
			  
				|  Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 2:19 pm    Post subject: |   |  |  
		  | Partisan
 
 
 Joined: 20 Jan 2003Posts: 319
 Location: Israel
 
 | 
			  
				|  no idea from anybody...  _________________
 Best regards.
 Yaakov
 SWG, IBM Commerce, Israel
 |  |  
		  | Back to top |  |  
		  |  |  
		  | rbicheno | 
			  
				|  Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 11:07 pm    Post subject: |   |  |  
		  | Apprentice
 
 
 Joined: 07 Jul 2009Posts: 43
 
 
 | 
			  
				| One of the scenarios in the Message Broker performance reports is the message routing sample which is based around the use of a shared variable for storing a routing table, so from this you can see performance here is excellent, at your rates with a small number of rows the shared variable will not be a problem. http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg27007150
 
 With regards to scalability however i personally keep the size of the cache to no more than a few hundred rows. From what i have there is little benefit over this size. So although you could do what you want i dont think you will actually see much benefit if you have to cache so much data, you maybe be better with a db table.  As always only way to be sure is try it!
 Hope that helps.
 |  |  
		  | Back to top |  |  
		  |  |  
		  |  |  |  
  
	|    |  | Page 1 of 1 |  
 
 
  
  	| 
		
		  | 
 
 | You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum
 You cannot edit your posts in this forum
 You cannot delete your posts in this forum
 You cannot vote in polls in this forum
 
 |  |  |  |