> > I think we could add a local backend copy that stays up to date with the
> > DSA. One idea would be to use an atomic counter to track the number of
> > entries in the DSA and compare it with a local backend counter whenever the
> > tranche name lookup occurs. If the atomic counter is higher (since we
> > don't have deletions),
> > we can update the local copy. Updating the local table should be a
> > rare occurrence, but it would
> > require an additional atomic fetch every time the name lookup occurs, in all the
> > above code paths.
> >
> > Perhaps there's a better approach?
>
> I was thinking to switch to the DSA (and update local copy) when a name is
> not found in the local copy. That way there is no need to maintain a counter and
> the DSA overhead should be rare enough.
>
> Regards,
That should work as well. good idea.
--
Sami
