[ryanworl]

Hard disagree. This is the only way in a distributed, sorted KV store to get any semblance of data locality. If Cockroach and Spanner didn't do this, they would constantly be doing 2PC for modifying data that is related but stored on different groups of machines.

[gigatexal]

We are evaluating it for production and the senior engineer we talked to from the company told us that. I’d think he knows what he’s talking about.

[ryanworl]

I may be misinterpreting what you mean by a 1-1 relationship, but the documentation for Cloud Spanner, Cockroach, and the old FoundationDB SQL layer all use a similar schema to the one I described in their examples. Additionally, the F1 paper describes using it in the same way in Figure 2.

[gigatexal]

He said tables with a parent child relationship that is one to one meaning if I understand that right one parent ID mapping to one child ID. Its entirely possible either I’m misinterpreting him or he’s wrong but that’s what he said.

[wrigby]

I think the data locality benefits would hold for one to many relationships too (that is, one parent with many children).

[gigatexal]

Also they do 2PC work in a 1PC way by maintaining a hidden transaction status table.

[ddorian43]

You can have hash sharding and be able to distribute tables easily compared to range sharding.