4 ms·

Here is what Google has to say about 'moving the "C" part up into your application': “We also have a lot of experience with eventual consistency systems at Goo

Here is what Google has to say about 'moving the "C" part up into your application': “We also have a lot of experience with eventual consistency systems at Google. In all such systems, we find developers spend a significant fraction of their time building extremely complex and error-prone mechanisms to cope with eventual consistency and handle data that may be out of date. We think this is an unacceptable burden to place on developers and that consistency problems should be solved at the database level.”[1] [1]: https://yokota.blog/2017/02/17/dont-settle-for-eventual-consistency https://yokota.blog/2017/02/17/dont-settle-for-eventual-cons...

hodgesrm 9y ago
There's a quote from _Transaction Processing_ by Gray and Reuter about ACID transactions that is quite relevant to eventual consistency: "Without transactions, distributed systems cannot be made to work for typical real-life applications." This is as true now as it was 25 years ago, for exactly the reasons cited by Google. The book is incidentally still a good read.
- zeckalpha 9y ago
  Transactions are related to atomicity, not consistency. There are atomic AP systems with transactions but without consistency.