Re: efficient compare

Jay Dee wrote:

> From reading the clarifications made in subsequent posts to this
> discussion, it seems that you don't have two sets, you have one,
> and the issue isn't how to reconcile more than one set but how to
> maintain one set in more than one place.

Agree,

> Which begs the question: does it have to be more than one place?
> is there no acceptable way to connect data sources and sinks to
> one database?

Yes, it needs to be in 100 places, eventual consistency is all that matters.

> It seems you've already answered this question and are trying to
> figure out how to maintain a distributed database. I suggest you
> check out the distributed databases already on the market (dismal
> performers) or check out Stonebraker's work-in-process (tolerates
> inconsistencies "for a while.")

Doubt any database systems would help. I am interested in algorithms, not off the shelf dbms, becaues I doubt they scale to 100 or 500 nodes... geographically distributed... It might seem like asking for a lot, but I am ready to accept eventual consistency. Received on Sun Apr 23 2006 - 22:07:57 CEST