Having just written an interview response about NoSQL concepts for a RDBMS audience it was poetic that an inconspicuous title “(4 of 3)” highlights that both a MySQL read scalable implementation via replication and a NoSQL solution can share a common lack of timely consistency of data. For the sake of Group Commit I hope my data is always consistent at some location at some point in time as soon as possible.

In attempting to comment to Kristian Nielsen’s Fixing MySQL group commit (part 4 of 3) I was forced to watch an ad before I could even add a comment. Go jump Live Journal, it’s quicker to write my own blog post.

And if anybody is still reading, I had just written the following.

“There is clearly a place for NoSQL solutions. The two primary types of products are a key/value store and a schema-less solution. You need to learn the strengths, benefits and weaknesses of both. For a RDBMS resource the lack of transactions, the lack of joins and the concept of eventually consistent can take some time to accept.”

Tags: consistency, MySQL, nosql

This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 1st, 2010 at 1:36 pm and is filed under Databases, MySQL, Professional. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.