Take the 2-minute tour ×
Database Administrators Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for database professionals who wish to improve their database skills and learn from others in the community. It's 100% free, no registration required.

To clarify, the database can be any type RDBMS, NoSQL/BigTable. However, it must not employ any usual consistency measures such as locks, or synchronization, but the inconsistency-invincibility must come only from the schema, somehow.

Is this "known" to be possible or impossible? Could there be a particular, perhaps very atomic, and isolated, and somehow clever, organization of data in the schema, such that all inconsistency and race conditions are impossible under any transactions? Even trivial, or non-implementable examples are welcome!

Or is there some kind of database uncertainty principle that says you can't have "consistency" and "performance" in equal share?

share|improve this question
    
I'm not really sure what you're asking here. The "schema" is a passive entity, I don't see how it could "enforce" anything by itself, being passive. (Also on a practical matter with current CPUs, you can't even generally read a pair of words from memory consistently without synchronization (atomic ops) in the presence of concurrent writes. Do your criteria allow atomics?) –  Mat Feb 17 '13 at 21:28
    
Okay atomics are okay. –  Cris Stringfellow Feb 17 '13 at 22:51

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.