
Announcing Yugabyte DB 2.0 GA: High-Performance Distributed SQL - Avi-D-coder
https://blog.yugabyte.com/announcing-yugabyte-db-2-0-ga-jepsen-tested-high-performance-distributed-sql/
======
lfittl
The "Clusters Created" metric seems to imply that every deployed database
sends back tracking information to Yugabyte's servers.

I've had to look a bit in the docs to find this page, which seems to confirm
it: [https://docs.yugabyte.com/latest/manage/diagnostics-
reportin...](https://docs.yugabyte.com/latest/manage/diagnostics-reporting/)

As someone who has seen this tracking-by-default issue play out a few times,
I'd recommend having a clear notice on the installation page that includes
details on how to opt-out.

------
dstaley
> Again, YugaByte DB's Jepsen tests did not pass. They do not currently pass.
> Correctness issues we identified in our collaboration, mainly due to non-
> transactional schema changes, are still unaddressed. YugaByte and I have
> talked about this.[1]

[1]
[https://twitter.com/jepsen_io/status/1174317882056040456](https://twitter.com/jepsen_io/status/1174317882056040456)

~~~
kmuthukk
As Kyle mentioned << Because these problems involve schema changes (e.g.
creating tables), they may not impact users frequently. YugaByte doesn't think
they're relevant to the core transactional mechanism in YugaByte DB, which is
why they're not discussing them when they say "Jepsen tests passed". >> the
impact of this is very limited, and not core to the transactional mechanism in
YugabyteDB.

Most "Distributed DB" vendors do not support transactional DDL yet to our
knowledge, and haven't been subjected to this specific test. In any case, I
have updated the post/blog to clarify this:

<< Given that DocDB, Yugabyte DB’s underlying distributed document store, is
common across both the YCQL and YSQL APIs, it was no surprise that YSQL passed
official Jepsen run safety tests relatively easily (with the exception of
transactional DDL support, which almost no other distributed SQL database
vendor supports, and we plan to support soon. The real-world impact of this
open issue is really small as it is limited to cases where DML happens before
DDL has fully finished). >>

The ticket tracking this open issue is [https://github.com/YugaByte/yugabyte-
db/issues/2021](https://github.com/YugaByte/yugabyte-db/issues/2021).

~~~
tptacek
What does the fact that other vendors don't support the feature have to do
with whether you implemented the feature correctly?

~~~
d3ckard
It helps to establish the software as state-of-the-art, even of particular
issue is not addressed yet.

~~~
tptacek
What does it matter if it's "state-of-the-art" when we're asking whether the
database is correct?

~~~
d3ckard
There is a world of difference between not having a common and necessary
feature and not having feature nobody else has neither. If project tries to
establish itself as a serious competitor in a given field, communication is
crucial. “We don’t have it but we’re working on it and softwares you currently
use probably doesn’t have it” is way different message than “we miss something
you probably use”.

~~~
hkolk
Ehm yeah. If it was groundbreaking. But there are 5+ other contenders in this
field who are dealing with the same issues, and in some cases are fairing
better. We are currently evaluating multiple NewSQL vendors, and it really
does come down to the details making or breaking the case. I am not sure what
potential NDAs I am on so I can't share details, but there is a sharp
difference in one company and another claiming "Distributed Serializability".
Cockroach for instance enforces a lot of stuff to maintain consistency, and as
a result can be (or is) slower. But at least it's also predictable. In the end
it's all trade-offs and I actually like the Yugabyte product a lot. I just
wish they are more transparent about what choices they made and the impact of
that

~~~
rkarthik007
Hi @hkolk,

Thanks for your feedback! Not sure when you tried yugabyteDB, but our
serializable isolation level and YSQL API (which is needed to exercise
serializability) were in beta till a couple of days ago. That said, if you can
share some feedback, that would help us out immensely. All kinds of feedback
welcome - be it about the product or why you feel we are not transparent.
Absolute transparency has always been our goal, your feedback will definitely
help us improve.

(cto/co-founder)

------
truth_seeker
Congratulations to Yugabyte Team.

If R2DBC is already supported, it would be nice to receive CDC events through
driver instead of forwarding to Local file or Kafka or ES just like Change
Streams in RethinkDB or MongoDB.

~~~
rkarthik007
We are working on r2dbc, this is currently an active project. We have made
good progress so far. If you have a use case or are in guiding the project,
please join our community slack!

------
shay_ker
I didn't know much about what Yugabyte was:

[https://docs.yugabyte.com/latest/comparisons/](https://docs.yugabyte.com/latest/comparisons/)

I wonder what architectural reasons there are that allow them to claim low
p-99 latency. Is it because of allowing different consistency levels?

~~~
kmuthukk
This is due to a combination of factors-- the choice of implementation
language (C++), a variety of enhancements to RocksDB, consistent reads from
leaders (using leader leases) rather than doing a 3-way quorum read, etc. We
discuss these aspects in more detail here:

[1] [https://blog.yugabyte.com/how-we-built-a-high-performance-
do...](https://blog.yugabyte.com/how-we-built-a-high-performance-document-
store-on-rocksdb/)

[2] [https://blog.yugabyte.com/enhancing-rocksdb-for-speed-
scale/](https://blog.yugabyte.com/enhancing-rocksdb-for-speed-scale/)

[3] [https://blog.yugabyte.com/low-latency-reads-in-geo-
distribut...](https://blog.yugabyte.com/low-latency-reads-in-geo-distributed-
sql-with-raft-leader-leases/)

------
Nican
Can anyone speak about the benchmark posted on the blog post? Is there some
fundamental difference to CockroachDB that is causing it to be that much
slower? Or is it really just raw performance?

EDIT: As another note, I believe Aurora added multi-master support recently.
How does that compare as well?

~~~
mikesun
Benchmark ran on each DB’s default isolation mode which are different:
serializable for Cockroach and snapshot for YugaByte.

[https://twitter.com/karthikr/status/1174031604106153984](https://twitter.com/karthikr/status/1174031604106153984)

