
Elasticsearch as a Framework - franze
https://zignar.net//2016/03/18/abusing-elasticsearch-as-a-framework/
======
sagichmal
I've asked this to the Crate people before, and not received much in the way
of a satisfactory answer. Elasticsearch fundamentally does not provide ACID-
style durability guarantees, and Jepsen testing has revealed near-as-makes-no-
difference insurmountable problems in replication during partitions. As such I
can't wrap my head around why Crate thinks it's safe or even coherent to build
a database product on top of it. Even ES core devs make it very clear when you
ask (and I have) -- ES should be used as a secondary index, and not as primary
data storage.

What gives? What am I not seeing here?

~~~
Andys
The Jepsen test is of a very old version. Since then ES has had work done to
the clustering, as well as adding an fsynced transaction log.

~~~
sagichmal
I agree it's an old version, and I agree they've made incremental improvements
since them. But ES is fundamentally clustered Lucene indexes. You can't bolt
on partition safety like a feature; it kinda has to be part of the design from
the beginning.

~~~
lobster_johnson
Consistency issues aside, I wonder if the translog work in recent versions has
improved anything with regard to durability/crash-proofness.

------
movedx
Nothing here is really being "abused." You're actually just re-purposing a
piece of software to perform another job outside of its intended design -
that's fine! Just keep it stable and fast, and you're all good :-)

As a side note: I love Elastic. I would make it my daily, general purpose
database if I could, but that truly is abusive (to everyone involved.)

