2 ms·
"NoPaxos" is not "Not Paxos" like "NoSQL" is "Not SQL" ;) If you use a NoSQL database, the relations do not disappear. You just have to implement your joins in
by qznc 10y ago
"NoPaxos" is not "Not Paxos" like "NoSQL" is "Not SQL" ;)
If you use a NoSQL database, the relations do not disappear. You just have to implement your joins in a higher layer. NoPaxos pushes some parts of Paxos into lower levels, namely the OUM primitive of the network.
- hardwaresofton 10y agoForgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't they still pretty similar (in that they sound like misnomers?) Relations ~= Consensus (traditional full-featured Paxos) To use your sentence If you use NOPaxos, the consensus doesn't disappear. You just have to perform it whenever your sequencer, or replica-leader becomes unreachable/fails. The "OUM primitive" addition isn't much more than two monotonically increasing integers (session and order-number) which depend on a central (bottleneck) sequencer... NoSQL moved the responsibility for relation-management up, NoPaxos is moving the responsibility for consensus down/to the worst case... My point was that neither are fundamentally different from the "X" after the "NO"...
- mamcx 10y agoI dislike NoSql because the connotation that relational databases are "bad/old", and this is better. Because this look like "Say NO to Paxos!". NO is a strong word. SQL as language can have it issues but the relational model is far easier and more flexible than people assume.
- altendo 10y agoI am reminded of the old joke about how there are 2 major problems in computer science: caching, naming things, and off-by-one errors.