4 ms·
A lot of that seems like anecdotal at a best. Now, I'm not one to argue with someone who has as much experience as Stonebreaker, but it seems like he's looking
by notwedtm 12y ago
A lot of that seems like anecdotal at a best. Now, I'm not one to argue with someone who has as much experience as Stonebreaker, but it seems like he's looking at a few specific use cases, and formulating a broad opinion on NoSQL from them.
There are plenty of use cases where ACID compliance truly isn't needed.
Also, just because Google has one new database that features ACID compliance, does not mean that "Google is moving to ACID", it simply means that Google has identified a need for a portion of their data to be stored in an ACID compliant way.
- arca_vorago 12y agoI don't disagree, but I think what he is trying to convey is that there are a lot of place where ACID is needed but isn't being put into place. He's not arguing against non-ACID, he's saying people are using non-ACID systems where they shouldn't. It's a small but important distinction.