3 ms·
The simple reason it isn't the RDBMS holy grail is that most project that rely on RDBMSs don't really care about CAP or strong consistency and once at scale the
by zzzcpan 9y ago
The simple reason it isn't the RDBMS holy grail is that most project that rely on RDBMSs don't really care about CAP or strong consistency and once at scale the whole RDBMS thing just doesn't matter anymore, but things like latency usually do matter and it does sacrifice latency, despite bold claims of googlers.
I think Cockroach suits the RDBMS world much better. It understands that there is little reason to make it scale beyond a small amount of nodes in couple of nearby datacenters, but it does offer a lot compared to pre-CAP databases, meaning that it will be cheaper to operate and with no cloud lock-in risk.
- areefer 9y agoThere are a set of RDBMS use cases that do care about CAP and consistency - specifically applications that need Active-Active or Multi-Master capabilities. These use cases need scale across multiple data centers and low latency transactions. But CockroachDB suffers from worse latency limitations than Spanner since it relies on NTP/hybrid clock to serialize transactions. Disclosure - I work for NuoDB.