PACELC theorem explained

In database theory, the PACELC theorem is an extension to the CAP theorem. It states that in case of network partitioning (P) in a distributed computer system, one has to choose between availability (A) and consistency (C) (as per the CAP theorem), but else (E), even when the system is running normally in the absence of partitions, one has to choose between latency (L) and loss of consistency (C).

Overview

PACELC builds on the CAP theorem. Both theorems describe how distributed databases have limitations and tradeoffs regarding consistency, availability, and partition tolerance. PACELC goes further and states that an additional trade-off exists: between latency and loss of consistency, even in absence of partitions, thus providing a more complete portrayal of the potential consistency trade-offs for distributed systems.[1]

A high availability requirement implies that the system must replicate data. As soon as a distributed system replicates data, a trade-off between consistency and latency arises.

The PACELC theorem was first described by Daniel Abadi from Yale University in 2010 in a blog post,[2] which he later clarified in a paper in 2012.[1] The purpose of PACELC is to address his thesis that "Ignoring the consistency/latency trade-off of replicated systems is a major oversight [in CAP], as it is present at all times during system operation, whereas CAP is only relevant in the arguably rare case of a network partition." The PACELC theorem was proved formally in 2018 in a SIGACT News article.[3]

Database PACELC ratings

[1] Original database PACELC ratings are from.[4] Subsequent updates contributed by wikipedia community.

DDBSP+AP+CE+LE+C
Aerospike[8] paid onlyoptional
Bigtable/HBase
Cassandra
Cosmos DB
Couchbase
Dynamo
DynamoDB
FaunaDB[9]
Hazelcast IMDG
Megastore
MongoDB
MySQL Cluster
PNUTS
PostgreSQL
Riak
SpiceDB[10]
VoltDB/H-Store

See also

External links

Notes and References

  1. Web site: Consistency Tradeoffs in Modern Distributed Database System Design . Daniel J. . Abadi . Yale University.
  2. Web site: DBMS Musings: Problems with CAP, and Yahoo's little known NoSQL system . Daniel J. . Abadi . 2010-04-23 . 2016-09-11.
  3. Wojciech . Golab . Proving PACELC . ACM SIGACT News . 49 . 1 . 2018 . 73–81 . 10.1145/3197406.3197420 . 3989621 .
  4. Web site: Abadi . Daniel J. . Murdopo . Arinto . 2012-04-17 . Consistency Tradeoffs in Modern Distributed Database System Design . 2022-07-18.
  5. Web site: Global tables - multi-Region replication for DynamoDB . AWS Documentation . 4 January 2023.
  6. Web site: DBMS Musings: Hazelcast and the Mythical PA/EC System . Abadi . Daniel . 2017-10-08 . DBMS Musings . 2017-10-20.
  7. Web site: Hazelcast IMDG Reference Manual . 2020-09-17 . docs.hazelcast.org.
  8. Web site: Porter . Kevin . Where does aerospike fall in PACELC? . Aerospike Community Forum . 30 March 2023 . en . 29 March 2023.
  9. Web site: DBMS Musings: NewSQL database systems are failing to guarantee consistency, and I blame Spanner . Abadi . Daniel . 2018-09-21 . DBMS Musings . 2019-02-23.
  10. Web site: SpiceDB Concepts: Consistency . Zelinskie . Jimmy . 2024-04-23 . SpiceDB documentation . 2024-05-02.