Closed CAPITAINMARVEL closed 10 months ago
?
Hi @CAPITAINMARVEL, This is the expected behavior. I plan to add a method to invalidate the cache. However, implementing the updating of cached results based on the database's update operations is not on the to-do list.
This issue is stale because it has been open 30 days with no activity.
This issue was closed because it has been stalled for 14 days with no activity.
Hi @CAPITAINMARVEL, This is the expected behavior. I plan to add a method to invalidate the cache. However, implementing the updating of cached results based on the database's update operations is not on the to-do list.
Agree with CAPITAINMARVEL.
I don't think this behavior is ok for a "cache", a "cache" should no be a distraction. it should do its work and give results as if it were not there(just be faster or reduce io). it would be great if "cache invalidation" could be implemented, and it would be even better if you could make it the default action while invoking any modification methods.
BTW, this repo is EXTREMELY GREAT, THANKS
Describe the bug A clear and concise description of what the bug is.
To Reproduce
Expected behavior on the new document i should get it with 1000 instead of 500 but it doesnt keep track and it stay the same from cache