Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
NoSQL Databases
Home
About this group
Apply for group membership
Message from discussion Consistency model
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
William Oberman  
View profile  
 More options Apr 17 2011, 3:01 pm
From: William Oberman <ober...@civicscience.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 15:01:57 -0400
Local: Sun, Apr 17 2011 3:01 pm
Subject: Re: Consistency model
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

James: I feel like I understand what's going on in your code now based on
this discussion, and I'm ok with the fact that DURING a QW you can get
"transitional" results from a QR in another process (or either the before or
after state of the QW).  But once the QW succeeds, you must get the new
value.  That's what we're all saying now, right?  In your "read, read, read"
case, all 3 reads are happening during a QW, and some of them see the
"before" and some of them see the "after" (that's why I specifically said
single threaded, not because it's a single thread per se, but because a
single thread can't read during a write by definition).

will

On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Milind Parikh <milindpar...@gmail.com>wrote:

> Same process or not: only successful QR reads after successful QW will
> behave with this guarantee.

> /***********************
> sent from my android...please pardon occasional typos as I respond @ the
> speed of thought
> ************************/

> On Apr 17, 2011 10:04 AM, "James Cipar" <jci...@cmu.edu> wrote:

> > For a second, I thought this thread was saying I could see value(s) < new
> value(s) within the same...
>  That's exactly what I'm saying.  Within a single process I see this
> behavior, when reading with consistency_level=QUORUM

> Read value 1
> Read value 2
> Read value 1  # uh oh!  we've gone backwards

> On Apr 17, 2011, at 12:15 PM, William Oberman wrote:

> > Cool, that is exactly what I was thinkin...

--
Will Oberman
Civic Science, Inc.
3030 Penn Avenue., First Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15201
(M) 412-480-7835
(E) ober...@civicscience.com

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google