Consistency Tradeoffs in Modern Distributed Database System Design¶
Abadi, D. (2012). Consistency Tradeoffs in Modern Distributed Database System Design: CAP is Only Part of the Story. IEEE, 45(2), 37-42.
Cited by¶
4 citations across 4 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Transaction
- Trilemma
- The scoping move is PACELC: it scopes the impossibility to the partition case and names the no-partition mode separately (latency versus consistency), so the system is described by two regimes rather than one false trinity.
This sourceIntroduces PACELC, scoping CAP to partitions and naming the latency-versus-consistency trade in the no-partition case.
- The scoping move is PACELC: it scopes the impossibility to the partition case and names the no-partition mode separately (latency versus consistency), so the system is described by two regimes rather than one false trinity.
Domain-specific¶
- CAP Theorem
- The PACELC refinement (Abadi 2010, 2012) extends the theorem to the no-partition regime
This sourceAbadi's PACELC formulation, adding the latency-versus-consistency tradeoff that replication imposes even when no partition exists.
Supported in partVerified against the source
- The PACELC refinement (Abadi 2010, 2012) extends the theorem to the no-partition regime
- CAP Theorem (and variants)
- The PACELC model (Abadi 2010, 2012) adds the complementary dimension: even in the absence of a partition, a system must trade Latency against Consistency — synchronous replication to every replica before acknowledging a write achieves strong consistency but adds a round-trip time set by the slowest replica that must acknowledge — growing with the distance to that replica, not with how many replicas there are; asynchronous replication acknowledges immediately and propagates later, reducing latency at the cost of potentially serving stale reads
This sourceThe PACELC formulation, which adds the consistency-versus-latency trade-off that applies even when no partition is in progress and unifies it with CAP. The PACELC formulation as a two-regime extension of CAP, adding an else-regime consistency-versus-latency choice to the partition-time choice.
Supported in partVerified against the source
- The PACELC model (Abadi 2010, 2012) adds the complementary dimension: even in the absence of a partition, a system must trade Latency against Consistency — synchronous replication to every replica before acknowledging a write achieves strong consistency but adds a round-trip time set by the slowest replica that must acknowledge — growing with the distance to that replica, not with how many replicas there are; asynchronous replication acknowledges immediately and propagates later, reducing latency at the cost of potentially serving stale reads
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 2 of 4 citations: 2 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:d3ba84335bc5 · see in the full table