> You either want to have global ordering of all messages on a given topic, or (more commonly) ordering of all messages with the same key. In contrast, defined ordering of otherwise unrelated messages whose key happens to yield the same partition after hashing isn’t that valuable, so there’s not much point in exposing partitions as a concept to users.<p>The user gets global ordering when<p>1. you-the-MQ assign both messages <i>and partitions</i> stable + unique + order + user-exposed identifiers;<p>2. the user constructs a "globally-collatable ID" from the (perPartitionMsgSequenceNumber, partitionID) tuple;<p>3. the user does a client-side streaming merge-sort of messages received by the partitions, sorting by this collation ID. (Where even in an ACK-on-receive design, messages don't actually get ACKed until they exit the client-side per-partition sort buffer and enter the linearized stream.)<p>The definition of "exposed to users" is a bit interesting here, as you <i>might</i> think you could do this merge-sort on the backend, just exposing a pre-linearized stream to the client.<p>But one of the key points/benefits of Kafka-like systems, under high throughput load (which is their domain of comparative advantage, and so should be assumed to be the deployed use-case), is that you can parallelize consumption cheaply, by just assigning your consumer-workers partitions of the topic to consume.<p>And this <i>still works</i> under global ordering, under some provisos:<p>• your workload can be structured as a map/reduce, and you don't need global ordering for the <i>map</i> step, only the <i>reduce</i> step;<p>• it's not impractical for you to materialize+embed the original intended input collation-ordering into the transform workers' output (because otherwise it will be lost in all but very specific situations.)<p>Plenty of systems fit these constraints, and happily rely on doing this kind of post-linearized map/reduce parallelized Kafka partition consumption.<p>And if you "hide" this on an API level, this parallelization becomes impossible.<p>Note, however, that "on an API level" bit. This is only a problem insofar as your system design is <i>protocol-centered</i>, with the expectation of "cheap, easy" third-party client implementations.<p>If your MQ is not just a backend, but <i>also</i> a fat client SDK library — then you can put the partition-collation into the fat client, and it will still end up being "transparent" to the user. (Save for the user possibly wondering why the client library opens O(K) TCP connections to the broker to consume certain topics under certain configurations.)<p>See also: why Google's Colossus has a fat client SDK library.