• Gary Varga (5/9/2014)


    David.Poole (5/9/2014)


    Whats wrong with eventual consistency? Its not designed to be a drop in replacement for the 'C' in ACID right? Its more like the 'C' in CAP from what I remember.

    It seems that the "eventual" thing is a bit unreliable. It isn't guaranteed and people have started to notice.

    I am sure it is not what you meant but it sounds like how most people think. It isn't unreliable in the sense of being defective but it is non-transactional and doesn't have the same levels of repeatability.

    Except that's an impression. It often is as fast and reliable as most other RDBMSes. Most of us don't work in high transaction environments, and the ability to scale out cheaply, even at relatively low workloads, is interesting.

    It's similar to what Azure is doing with the PaaS stuff. Trying to get people to think smaller databases, that are ACID compliant internally, but rollups, reports, aggregates across your shards are not necessarily consistent. Fascinating stuff.