3 ms·

Yes, it's really serializable isolation. The real kind, not the "doesn't exhibit any of the named anomalies in the ANSI spec" kind. We can selectively relax i

Yes, it's really serializable isolation. The real kind, not the "doesn't exhibit any of the named anomalies in the ANSI spec" kind. We can selectively relax isolation (to snapshot) on a per-read basis (by just not creating a conflict range for that read). I tried to explain distributed resolution elsewhere in the thread. I believe our approach to indices pretty much totally dominates per-partition indexing. You can easily maintain the secondary indexes you describe; I don't understand your objection.

jwatte 8y ago
My guess is the objection lies in "Have to manage the index myself." Also, the main draw-back of "indices as data" in NoSQL is when you need to add a new index -- suddenly, you have to scrub all your data and add it to the new index, using some manual walk-the-data function, and you have to make sure that all operations that take place while you're doing this are also aware of the new index and its possibly incomplete state. Certainly not impossible to do, but it sometimes feels a little bit like "I wanted a house, but I got a pile of drywall and 2x4 framing studs."
- voidmain 8y ago
  "I wanted a house, but I got a pile of drywall and 2x4 framing studs." This is a totally legitimate complaint about FoundationDB, which is designed specifically to be, well, a foundation rather than a house. If you try to live in just a foundation you are going to find it modestly inconvenient. (But try building a house on top of another house and you will really regret it!) The solution is of course to use a higher level database or databases suitable to your needs which are built on FDB, and drop down to the key value level only for your stickiest problems. Unfortunately Apple didn't release any such to the public so far. So I hope the community is up to the job of building a few :-)

3 ms·

Yes, it's really serializable isolation. The real kind, not the "doesn't exhibit any of the named anomalies in the ANSI spec" kind. We can selectively relax i

by voidmain 8y ago

jwatte 8y ago
My guess is the objection lies in "Have to manage the index myself." Also, the main draw-back of "indices as data" in NoSQL is when you need to add a new index -- suddenly, you have to scrub all your data and add it to the new index, using some manual walk-the-data function, and you have to make sure that all operations that take place while you're doing this are also aware of the new index and its possibly incomplete state. Certainly not impossible to do, but it sometimes feels a little bit like "I wanted a house, but I got a pile of drywall and 2x4 framing studs."
- voidmain 8y ago
  "I wanted a house, but I got a pile of drywall and 2x4 framing studs." This is a totally legitimate complaint about FoundationDB, which is designed specifically to be, well, a foundation rather than a house. If you try to live in just a foundation you are going to find it modestly inconvenient. (But try building a house on top of another house and you will really regret it!) The solution is of course to use a higher level database or databases suitable to your needs which are built on FDB, and drop down to the key value level only for your stickiest problems. Unfortunately Apple didn't release any such to the public so far. So I hope the community is up to the job of building a few :-)