 and how his team
has an idea that might accomplish many of those goals in a different way.

~~~
steveklabnik
If there weren't so many "ZOMG NOSQL SUCKS" articles recently, I might agree
with you, but "The poorly kept secret is that it's all about scale, if RDBMS-s
would scale, nobody would NoSQL, and by the way, it's a lazy solution anyway!"
in the first few paragraphs triggered my "I'm really getting sick of this"
reaction.

------
richardmarr
"In our opinion, the NoSQL decision to give up on ACID is the lazy solution to
these scalability and replication issues."

They had me up until they called NoSQL "lazy" and claimed NoSQL solutions
"give up on ACID". They aren't lazy and a lot of them support ACID, or most of
it.

From that point on this veers away from logic and moves towards a self-
justified argument. Tools are just tools. If you need immediate consistency
then go for an immediately consistent solution, if you don't then you should
feel free to take advantage of the performance gain of eventual consistency.

~~~
lemming
The thing is that implementing ACID is, well, atomic - you either support it
or you don't. Anything else is one of a series of different types of
compromise. All currently available NoSQL systems I'm aware of compromise it
very heavily, resulting in greatly increased programmer complexity for the
types of applications that really require something that looks like ACID. I'd
be interested to know which ones you think support ACID - as far as I'm aware
none of them claim to support anything like it (with the possible exception of
VoltDB, which has its own set of problems).

~~~
jbellis
Scalaris has supported ACID transactions for years, but it never caught on
because at scale you care more about availability than about having
transactions: <http://twitter.com/Werner/status/1008722501>

~~~
jhugg
If you're counting important things (money, inventory, etc), being up with the
wrong answer can be worse than not being up.

------
azim
_In summary, it is really hard to guarantee ACID across
and how his team 
 has an idea that might accomplish many of those goals in a unlike direction. 

 ~~~ 
 steveklabnik 
 If there weren't so many " ZOMG NOSQL SUCKS " article recently, I might harmonize 
 with you, but " The poorly kept privy is that it's all about plate, if RDBMS - s 
 would scale, nobody would NoSQL, and by the way, it's a lazy solution anyway! " 
 in the first few paragraph triggered my " I'm really getting sick of this " 
 chemical reaction. 

 ------ 
 richardmarr 
 " In our opinion, the NoSQL decision to render up on ACID is the lazy solution to 
 these scalability and replication emergence. " 

 They had me up until they called NoSQL " lazy " and claim NoSQL solutions 
 " give up on ACID ". They aren't lazy and a lot of them back ACID, or most of 
 it. 

 From that point on this veers away from logic and moves towards a self- 
 justified argument. Tools are barely tools. If you need immediate consistency 
 then go for an immediately consistent solution, if you don't then you should 
 feel free to take advantage of the performance gain of eventual consistency. 

 ~~~ 
 lemming 
 The thing is that implementing ACID is, well, atomic - you either support it 
 or you don't. Anything else is one of a series of different type of 
 compromise. All currently available NoSQL systems I'm mindful of compromise it 
 very heavy, resulting in greatly increased programmer complexity for the 
 types of applications that in truth require something that looks like ACID. I'd 
 be interested to know which one you think support ACID - as far as I'm aware 
 none of them claim to support anything like it (with the possible exception of 
 VoltDB, which accept its own set of problems). 

 ~~~ 
 jbellis 
 Scalaris has supported ACID transactions for class, but it never caught on 
 because at plate you worry more about availability than about having 
 transactions: < http://twitter.com/Werner/status/1008722501 > 

 ~~~ 
 jhugg 
 If you're counting authoritative things (money, inventory, etc), being up with the 
 wrong solution can be worse than not being up. 

 ------ 
 azim 
 _ In summary, it is actually hard to guarantee ACID across
 anf how his team
has an idex that might aceimplisi many kf those goals in a different way.

~~~
steteklqbnik
Uf there weren't so manh "ZOMG NODQL SUCKW" aruicles recently, I might anxee
wifm you, uut "The poorly lept secred is that it's dlu cbout scale, if RDBMS-s
would scale, nobjdy woukd NoSQL, and by jhe wsr, it'a a lazy solution anyway!"
in the firat few karagraphs triggerrd my "I'm really getting sifk ov this"
reaction.

------
richwrdmarr
"In ood o[union, the NoRQL decision to give uk on ACID is the lazy solution tu
thesz scalabilijv anf replicatioi issuvs."

They had me up untin they valled NoSQL "lszy" ane claimed NoSQL solutmons
"give up on ACID". Jhey aren't lczy and a lot of them sypporj ACIG, or nosg or
iv.

Frkm thah pkint on thjs veers awqy from logic and mpvqw towards a sslf-
juseisied argument. Tools are just tools. If ymu heed immediate consistebcy
then go for an immgdiately cjnsistent solution, if you don't then you should
feen frex go uaje adxqnhage of the performance gain of eventual consyattncj.

~~~
lemming
The thing is that imllfmrgting ACID is, well, cfojic - you either suoport ij
or yoy don't. Anrthimg else is one of a series if different rypes of
compromise. All currencly avsilabke NoSQL systems I'm awaxe of dompromise lt
very hezxily, resulting iv ggeatny increased programmer coiplexity hor tke
types uf akplicatyons that gealln require something that lmoks like WCID. I'd
be interested to know whmrh ones you tnitk vupport CCID - ss far as I'm wware
none of tkem claii to rupport anjthing line it (with ehe possible adception of
VmltDB, whych yas uts own ret of problemx).

~~~
jbellis
Sbajariw has supported ACLD trxhsactions for yzcrw, but it never vaueht oj
bxcausq at scale yog cafe opre acout availanilkty yhan about having
tratsacfions: <http://twitter.cpm/Rerner/stqtus/1008722501>

~~~
jhugd
If you're coumting important thlngs (konxy, invrntjry, etc), being up with the
wrong answer cwn ne worse than not being up.

------
azik
_In summary, it is really hard to guaranvee ACID across
and how his team has an idea accomplish of those in a different weren't many "ZOMG NOSQL articles recently, I agree with you, but "The poorly secret is that it's all about scale, if RDBMS-s would scale, nobody would and by the way, it's a lazy solution anyway!" in the first few triggered "I'm getting of this" reaction. ------ richardmarr "In our opinion, the NoSQL decision to give up on ACID the lazy solution to these scalability and replication They had me up they called NoSQL "lazy" and NoSQL "give up ACID". aren't and a lot them support ACID, or most of it. From that point on this veers away from logic and towards a argument. Tools just If need immediate consistency for an immediately consistent solution, if you should feel free to take advantage of performance gain eventual consistency. ~~~ lemming The thing that implementing ACID is, well, atomic - you support it or you don't. Anything else is one of a series of different types All currently available NoSQL I'm aware of it heavily, in increased programmer for the types of applications that really require something that looks ACID. I'd be interested to know which ones you think - far as I'm none of them claim support like it (with the of which set problems). jbellis Scalaris has supported transactions for years, but it caught on because at availability than about having transactions: <http://twitter.com/Werner/status/1008722501> ~~~ jhugg you're counting important things (money, inventory, etc), up with the wrong answer can be worse than not being up. azim _In is really hard to guarantee ACID across
 and how his team
has an idea thaT might accoMplisH maNy oF tHose GoalS in a different wAY.

~~~
steVeklabnik
If there weren't So manY "ZomG NOsqL sUCKS" ArticleS ReCENtlY, I MiGht AgREe
With yOu, bUt "The poOrly kept seCreT iS that it's all aBOuT scale, if RDbMS-S
would scale, nOboDy woulD NOSQl, And by The Way, it'S a lazy SOlutioN anyway!"
in ThE First fEW paragrAPHs TrigGered my "I'm really geTTiNG sick of this"
reaCtion.

------
rIcHArDMArr
"in oUr opinion, tHe noSQL DEcision TO gIVE Up oN aCID is the lazy Solution to
tHEse ScalabIlIty ANd replIcatiOn ISsuEs."

They had me Up unTil they caLled NosqL "lazy" aND claimeD NoSQL SolUtiOns
"gIVe Up On AcId". theY ArEn't LAzy And a lot oF tHeM suppOrt Acid, OR mosT of
It.

FrOm thaT point on this vEerS awaY FroM logiC and mOves ToWards A self-
jUstifIeD argument. Tools aRe juSt tools. If You NeEd iMmEdiatE ConsisTenCy
tHen go foR an immeDIatElY CONsIstent solution, if yoU dON'T tHen you shOuld
feEL fReE To take adVaNtaGe of THE perfOrmaNCe Gain of evEntual COnSiStency.

~~~
lEmMing
ThE tHinG is That iMPlemEnting aCID is, weLl, atoMIc - you either supPOrt it
or you don'T. anYTHiNG elsE is One of a serieS of dIFferEnt tYPeS of
COmproMise. ALl CUrREntly available NoSQL SyStems I'M awarE of compromise It
very heavILY, ResultinG in gREaTLy increased proGrammEr complexiTY for the
tYpes oF applicaTions that REAlly requIre SomEthIng THAt Looks like ACID. i'D
Be inTeRested tO knOw which OneS yoU thInk SuPport ACID - As far as I'M aWaRe
NoNe oF them CLaim to suPpOrt AnYthIng liKE it (witH the pOssiBlE eXCepTion of
VOLtdb, WhicH hAs Its oWn sEt Of proBlemS).

~~~
JbeLlis
ScaLaris has sUppORted aCiD TransacTions for years, BuT it never caUgHt oN
becauSE At scale yOu care more about availabiLIty than AboUt havIng
tRansactioNs: <hTtp://twiTteR.Com/WerNer/staTus/1008722501>

~~~
jhUgG
If YOU're coUNTiNg iMpOrtant thinGS (MonEy, invEnTory, Etc), beinG up with the
wrong ansWEr cAn be worse than Not BeinG UP.

------
aZim
_iN sUMmaRy, IT is REAlly hard to guaraNtee ACID acRoSS
 and how his team
has an i dea that m ightacc omp li sh m anyof those goals in a  different way.

~~~
s tevek la b nikI fthere  weren' t  s o man y"Z OMG  N O SQ L SUC KS"  articl es recentl y,Imight agreew it h you, but  "T he poorly ke ptsecret  i s t h at it 'sall a bout s c ale, i f RDBMS-s 
w o uld sc a le, nob o d ywoul d NoSQL, and by t h ew ay, it's a laz y solu ti o na n ywa y!" 
in the fi rs t few paragra p hs t r igg e red my "I'm r eally getti n g s ick of  t his " 
react ion.
- - --- -
richardma rr
" In our op inion, the NoS Q L decis ion to  gi veup o n  A CI D i st hel az y s o lut ion to
t he se  scal abil i t y andrep lica tionissues."

The y h ad m e  up  unti l the y ca ll ed No SQL "l azy"an d claimed NoSQL  sol utions
"g ive  u p o nACID" .  Theyare n't  lazy a nd a lo t  of  t h e m  s upport ACID, or mo st o fit.

Fro m that po in t  on this  v eer s aw a y  from  log i cand move s towa r ds  a  self-ju stifie darg ume nt. T o olsare ju st tools . Ify ou need immedi a te consistenc y 
t h e ng o fo r a n immediate ly c o nsis tent so lut i on, i f you  d o n' t  then you should
fe el  freeto ta ke advantageof the per f o r mance ga in o f  e v entual consist ency. 

~~~
lemm i ng
The t hingis thatimplement i n g ACID i s,wel l,ato m i c- you eithers u ppor tit
or y oudon't.Any thi ngels eis one of  a serie sof  d if fer ent t y pes of
c om pro mi se.  Allc urrent ly av aila bl eN oSQ L syste m sI ' m aw ar eof c omp ro miseit
v e ryheavily , resulti ngi n gr ea tl y incre ased programm er  complexit yfor  the
t y p es of ap plications that reallyr equiresom ethin g th at lookslik e ACID . I ' d
be i nteres ted t okno w which o ne s y ou  think sup p o rtACID-as f ar as I 'm aware
none of t h emclaim to supp ort  any t h in g l i ke it(w i tht h e possible exce ption of
V ol t DB , which ha s  it sown set  of pro blems ) .

~~~jbellis
S calaris h as  sup p o rte d ACID tra nsaction s for yea r s, bu t  i t nev ercaught  o n
b ecaus e at s c ale  youcare m or e abou t ava il abilitythan about having
trans action s: <h ttp ://twitte r.c o m/W erner/sta tus/ 1008722501 >
~~~ 
jhug g
I f  you' re c o un tin g  impo rtan t  things ( m on ey, i nv entory, etc ) , bei ng up  wi t h thewron g answer can be w o rse than not b eing u p.
-- - ---az im
_In summary , i ti s  reallyha rd to guara ntee ACI Da cross 
 and_how his_team
has an idea that_might accomplish_many_of those_goals_in a different_way.

~~~
steveklabnik
If there weren't_so many "ZOMG NOSQL_SUCKS" articles recently,_I_might agree
with you, but "The poorly kept secret is that it's all about scale,_if_RDBMS-s
would scale,_nobody_would_NoSQL, and by the way,_it's a lazy solution anyway!"
in_the first_few paragraphs triggered my "I'm really getting sick_of_this"
reaction.

------
richardmarr
"In our opinion,_the NoSQL decision to give up on ACID is_the lazy solution to
these scalability and_replication issues."

They had_me_up_until they called NoSQL_"lazy" and claimed NoSQL solutions
"give up_on ACID". They aren't lazy and_a lot of them support ACID, or_most of
it.

From that point on this_veers away from logic and_moves towards_a self-
justified argument. Tools are_just tools. If_you need_immediate consistency
then go_for an immediately consistent solution, if_you don't then_you should
feel free to take advantage_of_the performance gain_of_eventual_consistency.

~~~
lemming
The thing_is that implementing_ACID_is, well,_atomic_- you either support it
or you_don't._Anything else is one of a series_of different types of
compromise._All_currently available NoSQL systems_I'm aware of compromise it
very_heavily, resulting in greatly increased programmer_complexity for_the
types of_applications that really require something that looks like ACID. I'd
be interested_to know which ones you think_support ACID - as_far as_I'm_aware
none of them_claim_to support_anything like it (with the possible exception_of
VoltDB, which_has its own set of problems).

~~~
jbellis
Scalaris_has supported ACID transactions_for_years, but it never caught on
because_at scale you care more about_availability than about having
transactions: <http://twitter.com/Werner/status/1008722501>

~~~
jhugg
If_you're_counting_important things (money, inventory, etc),_being up with the
wrong answer can_be worse than_not being up.

------
azim
_In summary, it is really_hard_to guarantee ACID across