News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Spanner: Google's Globally-Distributed Database. Parent comment

Re:Spanner: Google's Globally-Distributed Database by linuxhansl on Saturday September 15, 2012 @07:42PM (#4527660)
>if your database system can't do lock-free reads, your database is broken

Yep.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Spanner: Google's Globally-Distributed Database by rdtsc on Saturday September 15, 2012 @10:44PM (#4528066)
I know CouchDB doesn't do read locking. What are other ones out there?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Spanner: Google's Globally-Distributed Database by coolestuk on Sunday September 16, 2012 @04:42AM (#4528688)
Not doing read locking is not a game-changer.

Firebird doesn't do read locking. Neither does Lotus Notes. Both have been around about 20 years.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Spanner: Google's Globally-Distributed Database by Locke1689 on Sunday September 16, 2012 @03:48PM (#4530126)
Not doing read locking alone. Combine it with a planet-scale data storage system...
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Spanner: Google's Globally-Distributed Database by pdog on Sunday September 16, 2012 @03:06AM (#4528551)
Postgres and Oracle?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Spanner: Google's Globally-Distributed Database by mace on Sunday September 16, 2012 @03:57AM (#4528617)
PostgreSQL uses MVCC to ensure ACID compliance without read locks. Uncommitted concurrent transactions are isolated from each other.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Spanner: Google's Globally-Distributed Database by jackowayed on Sunday September 16, 2012 @02:47AM (#4528513)
Datomic.
[ Parent | on HN ]