undefined | Better HN

0 pointslxgr1y ago0 comments

Where did you get the idea that “append only” needs to necessarily be implemented at the database layer?

0 comments

No one said that.

The point is it’d be hard to loose data with Scylla as long as your only ever appending to the physical tables. I don’t know if MongoDB has this same attribute.

lxgrOP1y ago

No idea, but why would that be necessary or sufficient to make it very unlikely to lose data?

Things can go wrong on many layers above and below the database, so the property you describe seems like an implementation detail of one particular approach, not something fundamentally necessary for sound bookkeeping.

Kkoala1y ago

Not necessary or sufficient, but with append only model you can at least trace back what has happened if/when something goes wrong

2 more replies

scripturial1y ago

I am not sure where the disconnect is. Having a database that can provide a permanent unalterable record of all transactions, even when running over a distributed network, seems reasonably important to me.

Are you saying it’s just as good to do this in the application layer? I respect that’s a possible option. Not sure I agree it’s a good option.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

scripturial1y ago

No one said that.

The point is it’d be hard to loose data with Scylla as long as your only ever appending to the physical tables. I don’t know if MongoDB has this same attribute.

lxgrOP1y ago

No idea, but why would that be necessary or sufficient to make it very unlikely to lose data?

Kkoala1y ago

Not necessary or sufficient, but with append only model you can at least trace back what has happened if/when something goes wrong

2 more replies

scripturial1y ago

Are you saying it’s just as good to do this in the application layer? I respect that’s a possible option. Not sure I agree it’s a good option.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse