3 ms·
Aphyr's been testing more than SQL stores. "NoSQL" is not a magic bullet: concurrency is still hard when you skip the SQL.
by rspeer 11y ago
Aphyr's been testing more than SQL stores.
"NoSQL" is not a magic bullet: concurrency is still hard when you skip the SQL.
- lostcolony 11y agoI know. Sorry, I should have been clearer; what I meant was Aphyr has had some fine results for SQL DBs, provided you avoided distribution. And he has had some fine results for NoSQL DBs, when distributed, provided you preferred availability to consistency (generally in certain scenarios, or with certain caveats). What he has not had, and so presumably was lamenting, was any distributed DB that offered transactions that passed any sort of muster, except for FoundationDB, which was made defunct. That, or any DBs he could recommend that met every claim their documentation made (as that's largely what he's testing for). I meant that with this being the first distributed SQL store, he was saying there was nothing he could recommend that actually offered similar guarantees to what this was claiming. That is, ACID style (well, technically --ID I believe) DB transactions in a distributed environment. FoundationDB did (though it was NoSQL), hence his mentioning it. But that's different than there is nothing he can recommend, at large; he can't recommend similar solutions, but for a given problem he could likely recommend a compelling, different, solution.