[rabbitmq-discuss] Confirm consistent hash exchange behavior

[Simon MacMullen]

On 18/03/2013 10:42AM, Alvaro Videla wrote:
> Why then not just have one queue per GUID and use the anon exchange to
> do the routing? Then remove the queue when the GUID is not needed anymore.

I am assuming the use case involves large numbers of GUIDs with a few 
messages each. Keeping track of all those queues and ensuring consumers 
each get their share would not be fun.

> BTW, for a use case similar to this one is why I proposed the interval
> exchange.

But don't you have the same problem as with the CHX? When you want to 
add a new queue, you have to rearrange the intervals somehow in order 
for the new queue to receive any work... at which point you just broke 
per-GUID message ordering.

Cheers, Simon