accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Billie J Rinaldi <billie.j.rina...@ugov.gov>
Subject Re: Does FATE equate to a transaction at the Mutation level?
Date Sun, 01 Jul 2012 17:19:40 GMT
Just to be clear, Accumulo provides transactions within individual Mutations, but it doesn't
use FATE to do so.

Billie


----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Medinets" <david.medinets@gmail.com>
> To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
> Sent: Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:11:59 PM
> Subject: Re: Does FATE equate to a transaction at the Mutation level?
> <sigh> Which your presentation explained basically on the next slide
> ... I should have read more.
> 
> On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Adam Fuchs <afuchs@apache.org> wrote:
> > FATE is really designed to provide low frequency atomic operations
> > across
> > distributed subcomponents components, rather than the high-speed
> > transactions across distributed partitions that Foundation DB
> > supports.
> > Performance in terms of transactions per second is limited with
> > FATE, and
> > certainly doesn't scale linearly as the cluster grows.
> >
> > Adam
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 12:00 PM, David Medinets
> > <david.medinets@gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> >> I went to a talk about Foundation DB the other day. They said that
> >> Foundation DB was the only NoSQL tool with transactions. But then I
> >> thought, does FATE serve as a transaction boundary ... at least for
> >> Mutations?
> >>

Mime
View raw message