Re: [Firebird-devel] NoSQL, Transactions, and Minor Flames

>> Are you using the durability term strictly in the area of transactions >> or in a sense that a successful write survives a system crash? > > Durability has all sorts of interesting characteristics. In general, it > means that after something bad, committed transactions persist. The > questio

Re: [Firebird-devel] NoSQL, Transactions, and Minor Flames

> > Are you using the durability term strictly in the area of transactions > or in a sense that a successful write survives a system crash? Durability has all sorts of interesting characteristics. In general, it means that after something bad, committed transactions persist. The questions ar

Re: [Firebird-devel] NoSQL, Transactions, and Minor Flames

> On Thursday, February 19, 2015, Thomas Steinmaurer > wrote: > > Jim, > > > > > http://www.cio.co.uk/insight/data-management/jim-starkeys-nosql-low-down-it-wont-solve-big-data-3598479/ > > What do you think about "tunable consistency" instead of "ev

Re: [Firebird-devel] NoSQL, Transactions, and Minor Flames

On Thursday, February 19, 2015, Thomas Steinmaurer wrote: > Jim, > > > > http://www.cio.co.uk/insight/data-management/jim-starkeys-nosql-low-down-it-wont-solve-big-data-3598479/ > > What do you think about "tunable consistency" instead of "eventual > consistency"? > > > http://www.datastax.com/do