Spanner vs. Calvin: distributed consistency at scale
1–10 of 52 posts
Re: Spanner vs. Calvin: distributed consistency at scale
#2"The current public version of Spanner does not support client-side interactive transactions either."
Did not know that...why?
Re: Spanner vs. Calvin: distributed consistency at scale
#3"The current public version of Spanner does not support client-side interactive transactions either." Did not know that...why?
I can't comment on Google's decision here. I don't see any technical reason why they can't support client-side interactive transactions. But I'm happy to comment on technical points I made in the post ...
Re: Spanner vs. Calvin: distributed consistency at scale
#4Welcome Dan.
What other production implementations of Calvin are out there?
Re: Spanner vs. Calvin: distributed consistency at scale
#5Welcome Dan. What other production implementations of Calvin are out there?
I said in my post: "influenced the design of several modern “NewSQL” systems" --- I'm not aware of other production implementations of Calvin. But VoltDB's command logging feature came directly from Calvin. So basically I had in mind FaunaDB and VoltDB when I wrote that sentence. Neither is an exact version of Calvin, but FaunaDB is closer to Calvin than VoltDB. Obviously, the Calvin paper has been cited many hundreds of times, so many of its ideas have made it into other systems as well.
Re: Spanner vs. Calvin: distributed consistency at scale
#6"The current public version of Spanner does not support client-side interactive transactions either." Did not know that...why?
I can't comment on Google's decision here. I don't see any technical reason why they can't support client-side interactive transactions. But I'm happy to comment on technical points I made in the post ...
(Disclaimer: I work on Cloud Spanner).
Cloud Spanner fully supports interactive read-write transactions.
I'm not sure what the source of the confusion here is. Maybe Daniel is using a new definition of "client-side interactive transactions" that I'm unfamiliar with. :)
Re: Spanner vs. Calvin: distributed consistency at scale
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't comment on Google's decision here. I don't see any technical reason why they can't support client-side interactive transactions. But I'm happy to comment on technical points I made in the post ...
(Disclaimer: I work on Cloud Spanner). Cloud Spanner fully supports interactive read-write transactions. I'm not sure what the source of the confusion here is. Maybe Daniel is using a new definition of "client-side interactive transactions" that I'm unfamiliar with. :)
Our source for that was this post: https://quizlet.com/blog/quizlet-cloud-spanner (SQL Dialect)
Maybe that's no longer the case?
Re: Spanner vs. Calvin: distributed consistency at scale
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
(Disclaimer: I work on Cloud Spanner). Cloud Spanner fully supports interactive read-write transactions. I'm not sure what the source of the confusion here is. Maybe Daniel is using a new definition of "client-side interactive transactions" that I'm unfamiliar with. :)
Our source for that was this post: https://quizlet.com/blog/quizlet-cloud-spanner (SQL Dialect) Maybe that's no longer the case?
Yeah, I've read that post, and I have no idea where it gives the impression that we don't support interactive transactions. What paragraph are you looking at?
Could you be referring to the fact that we make you do writes via a mutation API rather than DML? Obviously that has no impact on interactivity...
Re: Spanner vs. Calvin: distributed consistency at scale
#9No pricing information for the self-hosted version. Gonna pass on this. Why even bother reading shitloads of text for something I can't try?
Re: Spanner vs. Calvin: distributed consistency at scale
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our source for that was this post: https://quizlet.com/blog/quizlet-cloud-spanner (SQL Dialect) Maybe that's no longer the case?
Yeah, I've read that post, and I have no idea where it gives the impression that we don't support interactive transactions. What paragraph are you looking at? Could you be referring to the fact that we make you do writes via a mutation API rather than DML? Obviously that has no impact on interactivity...
Yes, our misunderstanding and we misinformed Daniel. Fixed, and thank you.
It would be cool to know why Spanner is like that.