FEATURE: Tenant partitioned caches could improve cache-hit ratio #2956
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
rPraml
changed the title
rPraml
added a commit
to FOCONIS/ebean
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 10, 2023
…cache-hit ratio
rPraml
force-pushed
the
tenant-partitioned-caches
branch
from
d34f73f
to
21b0070
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hello @rbygrave,
this is more or less a proof-of-concept, where I need your feedback
we have a multi-tenant application with ~ 50 tenants. I noticed, that we get a lot of 'cache clears' from other customers.
We cache a lot of things in our applications (user-directory, settings, ...) and if one customer updates the settings e.g. it will invalidate the caches for all other. So I tried to experimet with tenant partitioned caches, which means, each tenant has its own set of caches.
On the other hand, caches had to be created dynamically and would - at least in current implementation - stay there forever, also if the tenant does not longer exist.
I don't have exact numbers about this improvement, but do you think, this could be useful?