In this article, we will clarify what consistency actually means across these different data systems.
“Can your system achieve strong consistency?” As a practitioner who has been developing stream processing systems over the last few years, I encounter this question frequently. I'm often tempted to confidently promote our product, but realistically, answering this query is complex. The challenge lies not in the question itself but in the fact that "consistency" means different things to different people depending on their technical background.
In fact, people coming from different backgrounds such as:
each have their own interpretation of consistency. Answering without contextual understanding can lead to misunderstandings. In this article, I will clarify what consistency actually means across these different data systems.
In traditional databases, consistency is a cornerstone among the ACID properties (Atomicity, Consistency, Isolation, Durability). This principle guarantees that each transaction transitions the database from one valid state to another. For instance, in a banking transaction where one account is debited and another credited, consistency ensures the aggregate balance remains unchanged. It's crucial to distinguish this from atomicity, which refers to the all-or-nothing nature of transactions. For example, atomicity ensures that all operations within a transaction are completed successfully, or none at all, ensuring no partial transactions are ever left in the database.
In summary, database consistency focuses on enforcing rules that preserve data correctness and validity throughout transactions.
Consistency in database’s ACID model refers to the database transitioning from one valid state to another.
Consistency in database’s ACID model refers to the database transitioning from one valid state to another.
One of the fundamental concepts frequently addressed in discussions of distributed systems is the consistency component of the well-known CAP theorem, first introduced by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley. This theorem has become a staple topic in both academic courses and professional dialogues on distributed systems.
In the CAP theorem, "consistency" specifically refers to the uniformity of data across various replicas distributed across different nodes. Ensuring this type of consistency in distributed systems can be particularly challenging. The theorem underscores a crucial trade-off among three key attributes: consistency, availability, and partition tolerance. According to the CAP theorem, a distributed system is limited to achieving only two out of these three attributes simultaneously.
Consistency in this context ensures that all replicas of data across different nodes display the same information at any given time. This is crucial for maintaining data integrity, especially in scenarios involving network failures or delays. The theorem illuminates the inherent difficulties in keeping data synchronized across multiple nodes, highlighting the ongoing struggle to balance these three competing demands in the design and maintenance of robust distributed systems.
Consistency in distributed systems ensures that all replicas of data across different nodes display the same information at any given time.
Consistency in distributed systems ensures that all replicas of data across different nodes display the same information at any given time.
When discussing streaming systems, the conversation around consistency often diverges from that of databases or distributed systems, reflecting unique requirements and challenges. In the article “Consistency and Completeness: Rethinking Distributed Stream Processing in Apache Kafka” , the authors mention the concept of “exactly-once” semantics as a key feature of consistency in streaming environments.
In streaming systems, maintaining consistency isn't about replicating data; rather, it focuses on ensuring that every data event is processed exactly once, even in cases of system failure. For instance, consider a financial transaction being processed in real-time. Should the system crash during this process, it is crucial that upon recovery, the system ensures the transaction is not duplicated. This requirement for exactly-once processing is vital for preserving the integrity and consistency of streaming data, ensuring that each transaction is processed accurately and precisely once, regardless of system interruptions.
Consistency in streaming systems typically refers to “exactly-once” semantics.
Consistency in streaming systems typically refers to “exactly-once” semantics.
To highlight the variations in consistency requirements across different systems, consider this table:
| System Type | Consistency Needs | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Databases | Transaction integrity | Bank transactions should always maintain balanced accounts |
| Distributed Systems | Data uniformity across nodes | Profile updates on social media must be consistent everywhere |
| Streaming Systems | Order and processing guarantees | Each financial transaction is processed only once, in real time |
In practice, what users and businesses truly desire is reliability and data integrity, which extend beyond the standard textbook definitions of consistency. They need systems that are not only robust and reliable but also capable of effectively managing real-world complexities. The ultimate measure of success for users is a system's ability to consistently deliver correct outcomes without errors. It’s essential to recognize that achieving this level of consistency is not merely about the system “feeling” correct, but being theoretically sound and functionally reliable.
Alright, let’s delve into something more intriguing: consistency in distributed streaming databases. If you are not familiar with what a streaming database is, think of traditional systems like KsqlDB and PipelineDB. Essentially, a streaming database is tailored for stream processing. Interested readers may refer to my previous articles for more details. At RisingWave, we develop a distributed streaming database aimed at reducing the cost and complexity of performing stream processing.
A distributed streaming database is a database, a distributed system, and a streaming system combined. So, what does its consistency look like? Ideally, a streaming database can achieve consistency in all contexts, but this certainly also depends on the specific system implementations. It’s not feasible for me to outline the consistency model of all distributed streaming databases here, but let’s focus on RisingWave: What does consistency look like in RisingWave? Let’s explore this across three dimensions.
The answer is yes. RisingWave effectively ensures that the internal state transitions from one valid state to another seamlessly. It is important to note, however, that while RisingWave supports read-only transactions, it does not facilitate read-write transactions across different tables. Therefore, if someone requires an OLTP database to manage complex transactional workloads, they would be better served by solutions such as MySQL, Postgres, CockroachDB, or TiDB. This design decision is influenced by two primary factors:
RisingWave preserves transaction semantics from upstream OLTP databases.
RisingWave preserves transaction semantics from upstream OLTP databases.
Moreover, RisingWave is designed to comprehend and process transaction semantics from upstream OLTP databases, which is a pivotal feature for clients in sectors like finance.
The answer is yes. RisingWave can facilitate high availability across various regions. While RisingWave does not implement complex consensus protocols such as Paxos or Raft to ensure consistency across replicas, it leverages S3 for data storage. S3 not only stores database tables but also internal states of stream processing, effectively replicating data across multiple replicas to maintain consistency.
The answer is yes. RisingWave excels by ensuring exactly-once semantics and adeptly managing out-of-order data processing. This capability guarantees that each data event is processed precisely once, irrespective of interruptions or disruptions in the data stream, thus maintaining high levels of consistency in streaming data.
Summary
Consistency in data systems varies significantly across databases, distributed systems, and streaming systems:
RisingWave effectively meets these diverse needs with a robust, adaptable distributed streaming database. Our approach not only adheres to theoretical consistency standards but also excels in real-world applications, making RisingWave a reliable solution in the evolving landscape of data consistency.
By combining platforms like EMQX for industrial data streaming and RisingWave for real-time analytics, manufacturers can tap into machine-generated data as it happens, enabling predictive maintenance, reduced downtime, and improved efficiency. This integrated approach allows industries to respond swiftly to equipment failures, optimize production, and make data-driven decisions that boost overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) and operational agility.
In this article, we’ve demonstrated how to build a core fraud detection system using RisingWave. With minimal setup, you can easily integrate these components into your existing technical stack and have a functional fraud detection solution up and running.
What role does the meta store play in RisingWave clusters? What are challenges using etcd as a meta store? How does migrating from etcd to a SQL backend address these challenges and provide significant benefits? This article will guide you through the evolution of the RisingWave meta store.
