[rabbitmq-discuss] PubSub - all bindings have to be in memory?

[Ben Browitt]

Thank you.

On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Matthew Sackman <matthew at lshift.net> wrote:

> Ben,
>
> Firstly, I made a mistake in my previous post - it's 24 *words*, not
> bytes. Sorry!
>
> On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 04:01:06PM +0200, Ben Browitt wrote:
> > Let's say RAM can fit all my bindings and that I'm using fixed sized
> values
> > with direct exchanges.
> > Assuming that the incoming and outgoing number of messages is constant,
> > should I expect the performance to degrade as the number of  bindings
> > increases or will it stay the same?
>
> It'll degrade. If you use topic exchanges then it can degrade linearly
> (which needn't be the case - we have bugs open to fix this), but if you
> use a direct exchange then it'll be O(log_2 N) as the bindings are
> indexable by a b-tree.
>
> > In other words, does a large number of queues, exchanges and bindings
> affect
> > the load even when most of them aren't being used?
>
> Yes. I would not recommend that you keep bindings around which are not
> used for long periods of time if they impact the performance of the
> system overall. It depends on what kind of throughput you're needing to
> achieve.
>
> Matthew
>
> _______________________________________________
> rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
> rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com
> http://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rabbitmq.com/pipermail/rabbitmq-discuss/attachments/20100201/98aa2c8f/attachment.htm