4 ms·
The implication is that the people for whom eventual consistency is not an option will never reach a data set size or availability requirement that'll require t
by mihasya 15y ago
The implication is that the people for whom eventual consistency is not an option will never reach a data set size or availability requirement that'll require them to use replication and experience the lag (and eventual consistency) involved.
- batasrki 15y agoAmong major features touted are auto-sharding and replica sets. I don't know if the implication is that it's only for web apps/websites that won't need those
- alexpopescu 15y agoThat's not completely true. Take a look at Google's Megastore paper: http://www.cidrdb.org/cidr2011/Papers/CIDR11_Paper32.pdf http://www.cidrdb.org/cidr2011/Papers/CIDR11_Paper32.pdf James Hamilton has a good summary of the ideas in the paper: http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2011/01/09/GoogleMegastoreTheDataEngineBehindGAE.aspx http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2011/01/09/GoogleMegastoreT...
- mihasya 15y agothink you're viewing my statement out of the necessary context..