News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:FaunaDB 2.5.4 by twic on Tuesday March 05, 2019 @11:17AM (#19311521)
Would it be fair to say that if i am considering Gemfire/Geode, i should also consider Fauna?
Re:FaunaDB 2.5.4 by evanweaver on Tuesday March 05, 2019 @11:32AM (#19311676)
Yes, for sure. They are both distributed object stores and share inspiration from the Linda/tuplespace lineage, as well as relational and document databases in FaunaDB's case.

FaunaDB supports function execution in the database, if the functions are written in FQL. It has a much more powerful index system and consistency model than Gemstone/Gemfire/Geode and is designed for synchronous global replication.

However, unlike Geode it is not an in-memory system, so it is not appropriate to use as a cache.

Re:FaunaDB 2.5.4 by metatype on Monday March 11, 2019 @04:23PM (#19362446)
As noted in the writeup, the FaunaDB transaction model uses a unique query expression language. Geode applies a more familiar begin + <operations> + commit / abort approach.

Geode skews towards eventual consistency when connecting geographically dispersed clusters. This means you still get super fast local transactions with batched updates to remote sites.