Does FATE equate to a transaction at the Mutation level?

[David Medinets <da...@gmail.com>]

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?

Re: Does FATE equate to a transaction at the Mutation level?

[Billie J Rinaldi <bi...@ugov.gov>]

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" <da...@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 <af...@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
> > <da...@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?
> >>

Re: Does FATE equate to a transaction at the Mutation level?

[David Medinets <da...@gmail.com>]

<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 <af...@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 <da...@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?
>>

Re: Does FATE equate to a transaction at the Mutation level?

[Adam Fuchs <af...@apache.org>]

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 <da...@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?
>