I have a general question about database reliability that perhaps someone could help me look into.<p>I love these Jepsen posts, and Kyle Kingsbury's work is amazing.<p>It all shows that distributed systems are really complicated and difficult to get right. These posts on the open source ones are really great. But how do you go about evaluating a proprietary one?<p>Let's say my company is looking for a columnar store. We look at the evaluation of Cassandra and think, "Nope."<p>But then someone says, "Hey! Let's go with Redshift!" How do you know that's any better?<p>We all know that DB makers claim certain things. Why would Amazon be better at this tricky subject than the people behind ElasticSearch?<p>My question is that I would really like to know what people think about this?<p>Is the decision that it's better to go with the unreliable demon that you know? Or is it better to pass the responsibility off to a company like Amazon, hope for the best, and lawyer up if unexpected things happen?
I think something went wrong here:<p><pre><code> ; For each [version, reads] pair, discard those with one value
multis (remove (fn <a href="/data/posts/332/k vs">k vs</a>
(= 1 (count (set (map :value vs)))))</code></pre>
Is this bug in Crate, or Elasticsearch? I believe Crate bypasses Elasticsearch for some things and accesses shards directly, at least to perform query pushdown operations, but are they also handling the optimistic version control?