FoundationDB and the New NoSQL

Fun fact; the FoundationDB founding team and Yext founding team are part of the same high school CLASS of about 400 people. TJHSST '98. I was a classmate (now a lowly ex-Googler working on a group communication platform).

What a shitty article.

> As interesting as these new developments–called “NoSQL databases”–were, though, only bleeding-edge startups and a tiny handful of other dreamers were really taking them seriously.

What is this shit? Seriously, wtf. I mean, sure, Mongo saw a lot of use among the mentally challenged, but a _lot_ of big companies have _big_ NoSQL clusters in production. Hell, according to datastax, a quarter of the Fortune 100 use Cassandra..

>

> MongoDB is not ACID compliant. Neither is Cassandra. Neither is Riak. Neither is Redis. Etc etc etc.

The fact that C*, riak, etc aren't ACID isn't a point against them; it's a calculated tradeoff. It's only a problem when they are advertised as being ACID, and I'll happily join you in condemning them if they do call themselves ACID when they are not

We are seeing the rise of "NewSQL" (that is, datastores with transactions), but that does _not_ mean the death of NoSQL, and it does _not_ automatically imply superiority to NoSQL. It's about choice, and that is fucking awesome. Stop trying to induce some twisted total ordering on each consistency model. It doesn't exist. As long as a consistency model is clearly documented, accurately implemented (yeah, I know, I can dream), then there is no innate superiority. Stop trying to create one.

Is it? The front page of CouchDB says "CouchDB is highly available and partition tolerant, but is also eventually consistent"

MarkLogic is too: http://www.marklogic.com/

I’m only aware of one NoSQL database that could do multi-document /multi-collection transactions.

ArangoDB (document database)