Re: new question ;-) // RE: understanding batch atomicity

We should probably replace "atomic" by "automatic retry" because it reflects exactly the actual guarantees On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Jon Haddad wrote: > The use of “atomic” for batches is misleading. Batches will eventually > complete, that doesn’t make them atomic.

Re: new question ;-) // RE: understanding batch atomicity

The use of “atomic” for batches is misleading. Batches will eventually complete, that doesn’t make them atomic. “All or nothing” is also incorrect, as you can read them in the middle and get “some parts of it”, and without a rollback it’s just “eventually all”. > On Sep 29, 2017, at 10:59

Re: new question ;-) // RE: understanding batch atomicity

recall that a delete is actually a corner case of an update, as is an insert. As I read the snippet, you are updating multiple tables. The partition key is table specific, so two sets of update batches are handled here. We like to say that we don’t get to choose our parents, that they were given

new question ;-) // RE: understanding batch atomicity

Thanks DuyHai ! Does anyone know if BATCH provides atomicity for all mutations of a given partition key for a __single__ table ? Or if BATCH provides atomicity for all mutations of a given partition key for __ALL__ mutated tables into the BATCH ? That is, in case of : BEGIN BATCH Update