That might be true, I wouldn’t know. However, the whole idea (and unique selling point) about NoSQL is that there’s no consistency (CAP theorem). Without consistency your “joined record(s)” might not even yet having been persisted and available for the cluster as a whole.
NoSQL advocates will object and say; “NoSQL has EVENTUAL consistency”, which is true. However, eventual consistency is equivalent to having your database in a never ending non stop state of “some of my stuff is garbage”
If you’ve got lots of updates, inserts and deletes, you can never trust your database without immediate consistency, ref ACID 😉
Try create a user in RavenDB, then login with that user immediately on your next line of code to see the problem (Hint; Your user doesn’t exist in the database at that point)
Sacrificing consistency for availability is like implementing 100+ threads. Never, ever, ever, ever do this. Unless you absolutely need it is my advice …
"Try create a user in RavenDB, then login with that user immediately on your next line of code to see the problem (Hint; Your user doesn’t exist in the database at that point)" the same issue doesn't occur in a sql db why? If you need to create a user in any style db, there's steps that must be taken to fill out the appropriate data no matter what.
No, you’re wrong. Google the CAP theorem. It explains the mechanics of the “Raven DB” problem. I could explain it to you, but it would be copy/paste of consistency versus availability concepts from CAP …
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
That might be true, I wouldn’t know. However, the whole idea (and unique selling point) about NoSQL is that there’s no consistency (CAP theorem). Without consistency your “joined record(s)” might not even yet having been persisted and available for the cluster as a whole.
NoSQL advocates will object and say; “NoSQL has EVENTUAL consistency”, which is true. However, eventual consistency is equivalent to having your database in a never ending non stop state of “some of my stuff is garbage”
If you’ve got lots of updates, inserts and deletes, you can never trust your database without immediate consistency, ref ACID 😉
Try create a user in RavenDB, then login with that user immediately on your next line of code to see the problem (Hint; Your user doesn’t exist in the database at that point)
Sacrificing consistency for availability is like implementing 100+ threads. Never, ever, ever, ever do this. Unless you absolutely need it is my advice …
"Try create a user in RavenDB, then login with that user immediately on your next line of code to see the problem (Hint; Your user doesn’t exist in the database at that point)" the same issue doesn't occur in a sql db why? If you need to create a user in any style db, there's steps that must be taken to fill out the appropriate data no matter what.
No, you’re wrong. Google the CAP theorem. It explains the mechanics of the “Raven DB” problem. I could explain it to you, but it would be copy/paste of consistency versus availability concepts from CAP …