Non-interactive provider performance

Bondy_Bo

I have a task to develop Reuters provider and I am now facing a choice between interactive and non-interactive one.

From what I know the NIProvider is fully sufficient for me. The only concern I have is of course the performance/throughput.

What would be the best choice from your opinion?

If you say that the “classical” provider has a better performance that I have to rethink my concept.

LtDoolittle6

I think something is being overlooked here.

This discussion depends on how you define "performance". In a like-for-like discussion there are three things to consider:

The amount of work the Provider has to do is probably the same as they both have to do the same amount of rsslWrites assuming they are both publishing the same items (*).

The amount of work the ADS/ADH has to do. I'm not sure this is the same in both cases but I wouldn't really know who's on top there ... or if indeed there's any noticeable difference.

The amount of work for the consumer. I'm pretty sure this is exactly the same.

The devil is in the details. Note the little (*). The Interactive Provider only has to publish items where there are active listeners while the Non-Interactive Provider will have to publish everything always. This is the essential difference between Interactive and Non-Interactive. At the end of the day this can potentially translate into a huge performance benefit for the Interactive Provider. As long as the demand varies in the sense that not all data items are in demand all of the time then the Interactive Provider will typically win I would say, simply because it can concentrate on lesser amount of work.

With the Interactive Provider you also avoid spamming the infrastructure with unnecessary data so it may also be more cost effective as you only have to dimension your infrastructure after the "demand" rather than the "supply".