Just to be clear, Accumulo provides transactions within individual Mutations, but it doesn't use FATE to do so.
Billie ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Medinets" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:11:59 PM > Subject: Re: Does FATE equate to a transaction at the Mutation level? > <sigh> Which your presentation explained basically on the next slide > ... I should have read more. > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Adam Fuchs <[email protected]> wrote: > > FATE is really designed to provide low frequency atomic operations > > across > > distributed subcomponents components, rather than the high-speed > > transactions across distributed partitions that Foundation DB > > supports. > > Performance in terms of transactions per second is limited with > > FATE, and > > certainly doesn't scale linearly as the cluster grows. > > > > Adam > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 12:00 PM, David Medinets > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > >> I went to a talk about Foundation DB the other day. They said that > >> Foundation DB was the only NoSQL tool with transactions. But then I > >> thought, does FATE serve as a transaction boundary ... at least for > >> Mutations? > >>
