Do you mean the write, not read?
I have read about the theory of DynamoDB, it states that
"In a multiuser environment, how do you ensure data updates made by one client
don't overwrite updates made by another client? The "lost update" is a classic
database concurrency issue. Suppose two clien
Side question: dynamo exposes both partial and fully consistent reads. Does
anyone know what the conflict semantics are? Last write wins? Actual mvcc?
Ahmed Al-Saadi wrote:
>I suppose this speaks to DynamoDB's consistent read feature that Vishal
>pointed out (though I believe statebox is more
I suppose this speaks to DynamoDB's consistent read feature that Vishal pointed
out (though I believe statebox is more general). Thanks to both of you.
Your link helped me find the following insight from Bob Ippolito's blog:
"[for an eventually consistent data store,] you have to move your confli
I meant to say that the read is eventually consistent and that does not affect
durability.
--
Ahmed Al-Saadi
Sent with Sparrow (http://www.sparrowmailapp.com/?sig)
On Saturday, January 21, 2012 at 12:35 AM, Ahmed Al-Saadi wrote:
> Would it then be accurate to rephrase your statement by sayin
Thanks for sharing, Daniel!
--
Ahmed Al-Saadi
Sent with Sparrow (http://www.sparrowmailapp.com/?sig)
On Friday, January 20, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Daniel Widgren wrote:
> We did one for long time ago with Riak at Uppsala University. Not sure
> if that will help you in any way.
>
> But you can look
Would it then be accurate to rephrase your statement by saying that data
durability is guaranteed (specifically when dw>=1), but that reporting this
durability is not?
--
Ahmed Al-Saadi
Sent with Sparrow (http://www.sparrowmailapp.com/?sig)
On Friday, January 20, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Sean Cribbs
Best regards,
Zheng Zhibin
在 2012-1-21，上午1:01，Dmitry Demeshchuk 写道：
> Generally, using eventually consistent databases for e-commerce sounds
> too risky.
>
> But I know that there was some e-commerce stealth startup using Riak
> for their needs (probably not for all the data though, I don't k
Amazon DynamoDB supports consistent reads and with eventually consistent reads.
http://docs.amazonwebservices.com/amazondynamodb/latest/developerguide/APISummary.html
On Jan 20, 2012, at 9:01 AM, Dmitry Demeshchuk wrote:
> Generally, using eventually consistent databases for e-commerce sound
We did one for long time ago with Riak at Uppsala University. Not sure
if that will help you in any way.
But you can look at our report, and see if you find anything.
http://www.it.uu.se/edu/course/homepage/projektDV/ht09/CC_product_report.pdf
/ Daniel
2012/1/20 Sean Cribbs :
> Be aware that th
Be aware that the client quorums are only a restriction on what the client
will wait for. It is entirely possible for a write to succeed in the larger
case, but not meet the W/DW quorum requirements. That is, the request may
"fail" but the write may still occur.
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 10:01 AM, D
Generally, using eventually consistent databases for e-commerce sounds
too risky.
But I know that there was some e-commerce stealth startup using Riak
for their needs (probably not for all the data though, I don't know
any details). Amazon uses Dynamo, which is quite similar to Riak. So
NoSQL can
11 matches
Mail list logo
