Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I think a lot of developers who think they have referential integrity and strong consistency requirements are mislead. I've seen the case where for example User A is leaving Company Z and the developers have, for some reason, rigged it so removing A's access to all documents in the world has to happen in one giant cross-shard transaction, because it's consistent which means it's correct. But ... that's crazy. There's a hundred equally-correct ways to do it with tombstones and ordering and without cross-shard or even cross-row transactions. If you give a developer something that looks like BigTable they'll learn to deal with ordering, instead of using atomicity as a crutch.


Cool let's implement a distributed database when it turns out there's no reason to.

That's not crazy - most people dont have access to enough stuff to leave one or two datastores, a consistent approach is fine.

Choosing 100 equally correct ways when one simple way works is ???




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: