<div dir="ltr">Thank you.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Matthew Sackman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:matthew@lshift.net">matthew@lshift.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Ben,<br>
<br>
Firstly, I made a mistake in my previous post - it's 24 *words*, not<br>
bytes. Sorry!<br>
<div class="im"><br>
On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 04:01:06PM +0200, Ben Browitt wrote:<br>
> Let's say RAM can fit all my bindings and that I'm using fixed sized values<br>
> with direct exchanges.<br>
> Assuming that the incoming and outgoing number of messages is constant,<br>
> should I expect the performance to degrade as the number of �bindings<br>
> increases or will it stay the same?<br>
<br>
</div>It'll degrade. If you use topic exchanges then it can degrade linearly<br>
(which needn't be the case - we have bugs open to fix this), but if you<br>
use a direct exchange then it'll be O(log_2 N) as the bindings are<br>
indexable by a b-tree.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> In other words, does a large number of queues, exchanges and bindings affect<br>
> the load even when most of them aren't being used?<br>
<br>
</div>Yes. I would not recommend that you keep bindings around which are not<br>
used for long periods of time if they impact the performance of the<br>
system overall. It depends on what kind of throughput you're needing to<br>
achieve.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
Matthew<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
rabbitmq-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:rabbitmq-discuss@lists.rabbitmq.com">rabbitmq-discuss@lists.rabbitmq.com</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>