To the best of my knowledge, only guaranteed way is with an ACID compliant system.
The examples other have already provided should give you a decent idea. If that's not enough, you would need to read papers on CRDT's and how they compare to ACID systems. http://highscalability.com/blog/2010/12/23/paper-crdts-consistency-without-concurrency-control.html http://www.eatcs.org/beatcs/index.php/beatcs/article/viewFile/120/115 It also helps to read up on Paxos. Warning on paxos, it's tough to understand and takes time to really get a solid understanding. There aren't many people that can write a great paxos implementation, but there are guys like Cliff Click that have open sourced their code. http://0xdata.com/personal/2012/04/hack-life-hack-life/ hope that helps peter On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Timmy Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > Cassandra in general can't provide guarantee any ordering of the executed > queries, since nodes may fail or rejoin the in arbitrary points in time. > > But why can't it provide ordering for queries run at at least the quorum > level? Given that none of the updates get lost, why would order still an > issue? > > Can you maybe illustrate a scenario which shows how/where the order would > get lost if writes and reads always occurred with quorum consistency? >
