On: If new DBMS technologies are so scalable, why is Oracle still on top of TPC-C?

[shin_lao]

Oracle and DB2 are at the top because no other solution is mature, it does not mean the ACID transaction approach is the best.

Can they make ACID transactions scale? They make bold claims and I'm afraid it will be hard to live up to it.

Is it worthwhile to make ACID transactions scale? Perhaps it's more efficient to switch to a new model for massively parallel processing?

[bunderbunder → shin_lao]

For the kind of application that TPC-C models ACID is non-negotiable, plain and simple.

It's one thing for there to be minor blips in data integrity to happen in the server's handling Google's search results or a social network's user data. But in a system that processes financial transactions, a blip in data integrity is an accounting error. An accounting error that could potentially expose the operator of the database system to serious financial harm or legal liability.

[shin_lao → bunderbunder]

You assume that a single blip in data integrity will cause functional errors.

I think you can design systems that can fail "in theory", but don't in practice.

[batista → bunderbunder]

That. Why do some programmers --even on HN-- think that storing BS data for a social network has the same needs as storing life-and-death financial, medical, judicial, millitary etc data?

As far as data stability and accuracy needs go, social networks are at the very bottom of the pyramid...