You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Create a perf test that can be used to compare FQA vs BQA:
Scenario 1: compare enqueue time (run with various x messages)
enqueue x number of messages
Scenario 2: compare dequeue time (run with various x messages)
dequeue x number of messages
use "success" handler (everything succeeds)
don't message dequeue
Scenario 3: enqueue+dequeue
Combine 1+2
Scenario 4: w/failures
enqueue+dequeue, with random success/failures
It is not clear to me failures would have a different performance characteristic. Lets find out
When comparing:
mix of count of messages. This should show degrade in performance with FQA but consistent with BQA
size of messages. This may drive to performance improvements to externalize large payloads
queue adapters: FQA (without history) vs BQA
queue adapters: FQA w/ + w/o history
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Create a perf test that can be used to compare FQA vs BQA:
Scenario 1: compare enqueue time (run with various x messages)
enqueue x number of messages
Scenario 2: compare dequeue time (run with various x messages)
dequeue x number of messages
use "success" handler (everything succeeds)
don't message dequeue
Scenario 3: enqueue+dequeue
Combine 1+2
Scenario 4: w/failures
enqueue+dequeue, with random success/failures
It is not clear to me failures would have a different performance characteristic. Lets find out
When comparing:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: