3 ms·

You're making a lot of assertions without any backup, and they don't make much sense. > Caches, being cheap imitations of ACID 'compliant' databases No they'r

You're making a lot of assertions without any backup, and they don't make much sense. > Caches, being cheap imitations of ACID 'compliant' databases No they're not, not remotely. > which themselves cheat all day every day I don't believe a word of this, have you any actual evidence (other than I believe Oracle's serialisable is actually snapshot isolation IIRC) > Half of a decision can be made with one version of a piece of data and the other half with another, resulting in undefined behavior. In a system that asserts that A = !B you can have an interaction that did some of the activities for A and some of the ones for B And this just makes no sense, you're claiming that databases are not producing the results they should, if that's the case then I don't believe you understand transaction isolation levels or indeed how database queries work, in which case you have problems other than and larger than caching. This whole thread s just getting weirder.

hinkley 4y ago
As someone said in another subthread: > That's with everything that have any level of complexity, just see how many people got transaction isolation wrong just because they had some simplistic view on how it works in database they use. Any database without MVCC works quite a bit differently than people think it does. And ones with MVCC run into the ceiling if you assume they work like databases that aren't based on MVCC. Like leaving long transactions running in the background. The problem is, like caching, difficult to catch in a petri dish. > This whole thread s just getting weirder. Maybe you should take a break. If you assume your database isn't doing much for you, you