Sign In

Communications of the ACM

Practice

All Your Database Are Belong To Us


View as: Print Mobile App ACM Digital Library Full Text (PDF) In the Digital Edition Share: Send by email Share on reddit Share on StumbleUpon Share on Hacker News Share on Tweeter Share on Facebook
AYBABTU screenshot

Credit: Zero Wing

back to top 

In the database world, the raw physical data model is at the center of the universe, and queries freely assume intimate details of the data representation (indexes, statistics, metadata). This closed-world assumption and the resulting lack of abstraction have the pleasant effect of allowing the data to outlive the application. On the other hand, this makes it difficult to evolve the underlying model independently from the queries over the model.

As the move to the cloud puts pressure on the closed-world assumption of the database, exposing naked data and relying on declarative magic becomes a liability rather than an asset. In the cloud, the roles are reversed, and objects should hide their private data representation, exposing it only via well-defined behavioral interfaces.

The programming-language world has always embraced such an open-world assumption by putting behavior at the center of the universe and imperatively building reliable applications from unreliable parts. Object databases are back with a vengeance. To help developers transition to the cloud, the existing class libraries and tool infrastructure must evolve to run as highly available services exposed using regular object-oriented programming language interfaces that reflect the relevant operational details.

Database developers (let's call them modelers) and application developers (let's call them programmers) have dual views of the world. If you are a modeler, then everything revolves around dataand data about that data (metadata). The world of database models is noun-based, talking about Customers, Orders, LineItems, among others. Once modelers have designed the data model correctly, they consider their job done.

In the realm of modelers, there is no notion of data abstraction that separates abstract properties of the model from the concrete details of the fully normalized realization in terms of tables with PK/FK (primary-key/foreign-key) relationships (see Figure 1).

The outside-in aspect of PK/FK relationships actually amplifies the need for exposing all the details of the underlying rows and tables. For example, you cannot pick up one specific customer row from the Customers table and ask it what its list of orders is. Instead you must have access to and understand the schemas of both the Customers and Orders table to perform a join across all the order rows in the Orders table and all the rows in the Customers table to check if the foreign key in the order matches the primary key of the customer, and then filter by your target customer.

Modelers consider this lack of data hiding an advantage since it allows for ad hoc queries on the data that may not have been thought of before, such as joining all customers with all products whose price matches their age. Imposing no data abstraction arguably has the advantage that the data can outlive the application. (Databases do support a limited type of data abstraction in the form of views, stored procedures, and table-valued functions. These are more like .NET extension methods, however, in that they operate on the public data and do not enforce data hiding. Moreover, this complicates the conceptual model, because these additional concepts are not rooted in the underlying mathematical foundations of relational algebra.)

This noun-centric view of the world also carries over to how modelers look at computation. For them, computation recursively is yet another model, a plan that can be inspected, transformed and optimized, and ultimately interpreted by a query engine. Often a query execution engine uses constant spacethat is, it interprets a fixed static plan without needing a call stack or using term rewriting to execute. Even the context of a computation is considered to be data via the system catalog that maintains metadata about other data such as the tables in a database and their properties.

The ability to treat execution plans as data to inspect and optimize before execution is extremely powerful, but naturally leads to a first-order, non-recursive computational model with a limited set of operators. Modelers also love to draw pictures of their plans, which is a great debugging tool, but gets difficult when dealing with higher-order constructs (such as first-class functions or nested structures), complex control-flow, or arbitrary recursion. Recursion is allowed, in the form of so-called common-table expressions that express linear recursion of the form X=BUF(X). This corresponds to a simple repetition and can still be drawn as a picture with a loop.

Database queries are declarative. For example, a typical SQL query as shown in Figure 2, which computes the total price of all products by category for a customer, semantically defines a triple nested loop that iterates over each customer, order, and line item. Modelers, however, trust the query optimizer will find a more efficient execution plan2 that exploits indexes and other advanced techniques to make it run fast.

This requires a perfect closed world where the optimizer can reason across all tables used by the query, and where modelers can be shielded from explicitly handling latency, exceptions, or other low-level operational concerns. These assumptions break down when tables get so big they no longer fit on a single machine, or when you try to join two tables that live in different "worlds" or administrative domains, or do a distributed transaction across a slow and unreliable network. Queries suddenly need to become partition-aware, defeating many of the advantages of a declarative query language that hides the "how" from the "what."

The inability to naturally perform arbitrary computations, the difficulties of reasoning about the operational behavior of code, and the lack of data abstraction arguably disqualify conventional relational database technology as an operational model for cloud programming. The stunningly beautiful mathematical abstractions of Ted Codd served us well at the micro level where the database can control everything, but they fall apart when we move to the macro level of the cloud. Just as in physics where you need to trade in classical mechanics for quantum mechanics when you move to the subparticle level, in the computer science world you need to trade in nouns for verbs when you move beyond the single-machine level.

The problem with SQL databases is not the data-model or the superb query processing functionality, it is the assumption that all the data lives in the same place and meets a bunch of consistency constraints that is difficult to maintain in an open distributed world. The details that are relevant to build a working system have shifted, which means the level of abstraction has to evolve likewise. In the local context of a closed world, the expressiveness, efficiency, and reliability of an RDMS (relational database management system), however, remain difficult to beat.

Back to Top

Programmers: Fix the Behavior, Vary the Representation

Concepts such as "behavior," "imperative," "side effects," "arbitrary nesting," "higher-order functions," or "unbounded recursion" are the bread and butter for programmers, whose world revolves around computation, as opposed to data. For programmers it is all about verbs such as Delete-Files, OnDragDrop, and so on, and enforcement of strong data abstraction by strictly separating the implementation and interface of their objects.

Taking a page from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming), "Objects can be thought of as wrapping their data within a set of functions designed to ensure that the data are used appropriately, and to assist in that use. The object's methods will typically include checks and safeguards that are specific to the types of data the object contains. An object can also offer simple-to-use, standardized methods for performing particular operations on its data, while concealing the specifics of how those tasks are accomplished. In this way alterations can be made to the internal structure or methods of an object without requiring that the rest of the program be modified."

Take for example the using statement in C#, which obtains a disposable resource, executes a side-effecting statement using that resource, and then disposes of the resource via the following syntax:

ins01.gif

A resource is any object that implements the IDisposable interface, no further questions asked. The IDisposable interface has a single parameterless Dispose() method that releases the resource:

ins02.gif

Because the compiler assumes only that the resource implements the IDisposable interface but does not care about the concrete type of the resource, it can blindly desugar the using statement into the following underlying primitive sequence of an assignment and a try-catch block:

ins03.gif

The actual implementation and type of the resource is kept strictly private and is not exposed to the using statement. This allows the same syntax to be used over a range of objects such as TextReader and IEnumerable that follow the same general pattern of create/use/delete.

The method implementations of an interface or class can use arbitrary imperative code. In fact, because each method takes an implicit this parameter that contains the method itself, methods are inherently recursive,1 and code is executed using a runtime call stack that dynamically keeps track of recursive calls as the computation unfolds into a potentially infinite call tree.

Compilers try to optimize the static-code representation or trace the runtime execution paths before optimizing the resulting straight-line code. Developers expect only constant time improvements, however, and generally do not like the structure of their computation to be rearranged dramatically and unpredictably by the optimizer, because the correctness of a program may critically rely on the order of evaluation due to side effects. Moreover, programmers demand the debugger is able to map the optimized code back to the actual source they wrote such that they can inspect the intermediate values in the computation to resolve bugs or problems.

The ability to specify a behavioral contract between specification and implementation, along with the fact that method implementations can invoke arbitrary code, allows applications to outlive data. This is especially important when leveraging disruptive technological advances (such as the cloud) to improve the implementation of a given interface, with minimal disruption for the programmer and application.

Back to Top

Evolving Collections

As a concrete example of data abstraction, consider the .NET standard collections library, System. Collections.Generic, or similarly, the Java collections library and C++ STL containers. These libraries were implemented when machines were single-core and most programs were single-threaded. Hence, the logical trade-off was not to make collections thread-safe by default. For example, in the .NET generic collections library shown in Figure 3, the class Dictionary<K,V> implements three (standard) collection interfaces.


The ability to specify a behavioral contract between specification and implementation, along with the fact that method implementations can invoke arbitrary code, allows applications to outlive data.


Programmers do not really care how the dictionary class is implemented, as long as it satisfies the contract defined by its base interfaces. As a bonus, because Dictionary<K,V> implements IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<K,V>>, you can automatically use LINQ to Objects to query over dictionaries viewed as collections of key-value pairs. (Since the LINQ to Objects implementation is defined in terms of the IEnumerable interface, it cannot use specific features of the dictionary implementation to improve efficiency, which is what modelers would do. In practice, however, the implementation of LINQ to Objects "cheats" by checking for known concrete collection types and dynamically dispatches to a type-specific implementation.)

With the advent of many-core processors, concurrency has become commonplace, and, hence, it makes sense to make collections thread-safe by default. Also, we would like to implement LINQ to Objects to maximize the parallelism inherent in the LINQ "queries" via PLINQ (Parallel LINQ). To leverage many-core machines, the .NET Framework 4.0 introduced a new implementation of collections in the System.Collections.Concurrent namespace (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.collections.concurrent.aspx). And guess which interfaces the new thread-safe class ConcurrentDictionary<K,V> implements? Precisely the same as those of the old Dictionary<K,V> class illustrated in Figure 4.

Java has seen exactly the same evolution, where HashMap<K,V> and ConcurrentHashMap<K,V> both implement the unchanged base interface Map<K,V>.

This is data abstraction in its purest formthe same interface with a new and improved implementation. In this particular situation, the new implementation for collections could partition the dictionary into independent shards that can be accessed and updated concurrently, a relevant implementation detail that therefore should be exposed explicitly to the programmer in the .NET framework via the Partitioner<T> and OrderablePartitioner<T> abstract base classes. (Note that just as the regular LINQ to Objects implementation cheats by downcasting to the concrete implementations of IEnumerable, the PLINQ implementation applies the same cruel and unnatural act with the new concurrent collections.)

Back to Top

Data Structures as a Service

As we move from the many-core world to the massively parallel and distributed world of the cloud, the next logical step3 in the evolution of the System.Collections namespace is to add support for collections as a service by introducing new types such as DistributedDictionary<K,V> that use the familiar collection interfaces, but are implemented as highly available scalable services running on some underlying cloud fabric such as Windows Azure, Amazon EC2 (Elastic Compute Cloud), or Google AppEngine shown in Figure 5.

Since the constraints of a distributed system such as the cloud with regard to latency and error conditions are different from those of running objects locally on a single- or many-core machine, support for asynchronous operations must be added by modifying the interfaces to use the new Task-based asynchronous pattern supported by await in the latest versions of C# and Visual Basic. For developers this is a small and nondisruptive evolution of familiar interfaces to reflect essential operational changes in the underlying runtime.

Collections as a service are immensely useful. Imagine you want to build a Web-based game that maintains a high score among millions of players of that game (every aspiring game developer dreams of being as popular as Mafia Wars or Farmville). Assume that each player maintains a list instance of System.Collections. Distributed.Distributed-SortedList<int,Player>, say in the variable highScores. You can then update and compare scores programmatically by mutating and invoking the list in code (using C# 5.0 asynchronous methods) as shown in Figure 6.

Since the service is highly available, players can disconnect and reconnect to it at any moment. Since it is scalable, it can support millions of concurrent players. When developers dream of platform as a service, they envision a class library of services like this.

Note that we choose to expose the services in System.Collections.Distributed using regular programming language APIs instead of via a REST or another network-level interface. Just as we like to hide the state of an object behind an interface, the exact protocol the client proxy of an object uses to communicate with the service that implements its behavior is an internal detail that should be kept private for the same reasons. In this context it is interesting to note that certain Web browsers apply the same principles to accessing Web pages by switching from human-readable HTTP to the more efficient SPDY protocol. Most modern services, such as Twilio and the distributed event notification service of Google's Thialfi, prefer language-specific APIs over protocol-level access. As explained by the Google Thialfi team, "Initially, we had no client library whatsoever, opting instead to expose our protocol directly. Engineers, however, strongly prefer to develop against native-language APIs. And, a high-level API has allowed us to evolve our client-server protocol without modifying application code."


An underexposed consequence of choosing availability over consistency is that queries have to deal with version conflicts.


The idea of System.Collections.Distributed is not science fiction. A concrete example of a distributed "drop-in" reimplementation of the Java standard collection classes is KeptCollections (https://github.com/anthonyu/KeptCollections) that uses Apache ZooKeeper as the backing store to provide a distributed and scalable implementation of the Map<K,V> interface. The Redis project announces itself as a "data structure server" and is another realization of the idea of providing distributed collections such as tables, lists, and sets as services. Services such as MemchacheDB and Windows Azure Caching and Service Bus are other examples in the category of problem-focused services that implement standard collection classes.

Switching back to modelers for a second, Dynamo10-based noSQL databases such as Riak appeal to the CAP theorem to trade consistency (which modelers are used to) for availability (which certain applications such as shopping carts require) as they try to create databases that can cope with the open world of the cloud. The consequence of dropping consistency is it is now up to the application to resolve conflicts, which deeply worries many modelers. Programmers, however, are already familiar with nonconsistent and nonavailable systems. Every time you call a method on an object, it may throw an exception and leave the hidden state of the object in an undefined state. The very fact that you are able to read this article on a Web site is testament to the fact that programmers know pretty well how to build highly scalable, practical, distributed systems out of unreliable components, using neither transactions nor consistency nor availability. They design their systems to be robust with regard to inconsistency to start with.

An underexposed consequence of choosing availability over consistency is that queries have to deal with version conflicts. For example, since a key may contain multiple versions of a value, the map function in a MapReduce query must resolve the conflict (without being able to write back the choice) as it is applied to each key. Most programmers probably prefer to drop availability over having to solve versioning conflicts.

The research community has been studying so-called CRDTs (convergent or commutative replicated data types9)distributed data types that satisfy algebraic properties guaranteeing eventual consistency under asynchronous replication. These data structures strike a nice balance between programmer convenience and scalability of implementation. Also interesting and relevant in this area is the work on concurrent revisions8 and older work such as reversible computations in the Time Warp operating system.5

Back to Top

Concurrency as a Service

The same analogy can be drawn for threading and concurrency as for collections. On single-core machines, programmers dealt with (simulated) concurrency using the System.Threading.Thread class. For many-core machines the model was extended to System.Threading.Tasks. In this case threads and tasks do not implement a common interface (although see Java's Executor framework and Rx schedulers), but conceptually they are very similar. Both threads and tasks are constructed by passing an action delegate to the respective constructors

ins04.gif

and then are started by calling their Start() method. The task API is much richer than the original threading API and, for example, allows comonadic composition of existing tasks into new tasks using the ContinueWith method. Yet both threads and tasks embody the data-hiding maxim of providing a coherent set of behaviors that represent an abstract notion of concurrency without revealing the underlying implementation details, such as the threadpool using a work-stealing scheduling algorithm under the covers.

The cloud does not just have a pool of threads, but a gigantic ocean of machines. We would like to expose all that abundant potential concurrency as a service that programmers can tap into. Besides simple actions, we also want to enable long-running and highly available computations in the cloud-pool that would survive fault-domain failures, as well as cluster restarts. Carl Hewitt's Actors are the prevalent model for concurrency at cloud-scale, as evidenced by languages and libraries such as Rx, Dart, Erlang, Akka, F#, Axum, and Ciel. In contrast to more static models for distributed computation such as MapReduce or Pregel that are favored by modelers, Actors allow programmers to express fully recursive and dynamic distributed computations. Observant readers will have correctly realized that distributed Actors are a natural way to implement the data structures as a service, as well as objects with a fixed behavior.

Operationally, programmers need to deal with four basic forms of dual computational effects:

  • The built-in effect of blocking computations (in a pure language such as Haskell this would surface as type IO<T>) that synchronously return a single value.
  • Blocking or pull-based collections of type IEnumerable<T> that synchronously return multiple values.
  • Nonblocking computations of type Task<T> or Future<T> that asynchronously return a single value.
  • Streaming or push-based collections of type IObservable<T> that asynchronously return multiple values.

The various concurrency primitives such as Threads or Actors and regular method calls produce their results using some particular combination of these four basic effects (see the accompanying table "Computational effects").

Back to Top

Services as a Service

When developing code, programmers rely on not only programming languages and libraries, but also various tools such as debuggers and profilers. When talking about moving existing programming idioms to the cloud, we tend to sweep a lot of details under the rug that are necessary for building enterprise-grade services, such as monitoring, tracing, distributed locking, fault detection, replication, and fail-over. Interestingly, many of these can be exposed as objects implemented by a service. Implementing the building blocks for debugging, understanding, and monitoring distributed systems is no panacea, but it is a necessary condition to make programmers successful in the new world of distributed applications.

Other aspects that become relevant when composing larger services from smaller services are colocation and efficient service resolution. Even on a single Windows machine, it is necessary to reason about thread affinityfor example, in order to update the UI, you must run on the UI thread. A practical substrate for building distributed applications must provide abstractions that make location and placement boundaries explicitand perhaps provide local atomicity or reliability guarantees. Within the confines of a single machine, programmers often gloss over such details (just as modelers do), but in a distributed world, exposing them becomes relevant and important to acknowledge for both programmers and modelers.

Back to Top

All Data is a Monad

Even though I have argued that models are not the right operational basis for cloud computing, let there be absolutely no mistake that I do acknowledge the enormous economic and intellectual value of (relational) database technology, and programmers are eager to use the data that modelers have curated, cleansed, normalized, and refined.

Fortunately, models can be embedded into programs by appealing to a generalization of Codd's theory7namely, Category Theory. As it turns out, most of the notions of "collections" or "tables" in various database implementations are actually instances of a mathematical concept, really just a kind of interface, called monads. Queries can be translated into the underlying monadic operators implemented as code.

Programmers call this LINQ6 instead of monads, and there are LINQ bindings for countless databases such as SQL, Azure Tables, MongoDB, CouchDB, Hadoop, and HBase, that expose models to developers, by embedding them as push or pull collections using a common interface.

Back to Top

The Revenge of Object Databases

Both relational databases and distributed actors shine in the right context. To paraphrase Pat Helland,6 SQL is clearly the undefeated leader for transactional processing of data on the inside. The object-oriented databases from the 1980s tried too much to be like databases and too little like objects, and they did not play to their strengths. In the small closed world of tables, declarative queries, and sophisticated optimizers2 it is difficult to beat RDMSs at their own game.

In the big open world of the cloud however, highly available, inconsistency robust, Web services exposed as standard imperative objects/actors will rule. The cloud era is one of (monadic and comonadic) computation and verbs, as opposed of to data and nouns. To ease the transition for programmers to the cloud, we have identified the following requisites:

  • Expose every data source created by modelers to programmers using monads/LINQ.
  • Create a class library of distributed collections implemented as highly available and scalable services but exposed using standard programming language bindings and interfaces.
  • Give programmers access to the ocean of concurrency in the cloud via comonads/actors.
  • Expose tracing, monitoring, debugging, diagnostics infrastructure as another service in the cloud.

Many of the required materials are available today. What is missing is a tasteful assembly of all these pieces into a set of elegant and functional packages that target the challenges developers face when migrating into the cloud.

Back to Top

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Brian Beckman, Terry Coatta, Gavin Bierman, Joe Hoag, Brian Grunkemeyer, and Rafael Fernandez Moctezuma for improving both the style and substance of this article.

q stamp of ACM QueueRelated articles
on queue.acm.org

The Rise and Fall of CORBA
Michi Henning
http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1142044

How Will Astronomy Archives Survive the Data Tsunami?
G. Bruce Berriman and Steven L. Groom
http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2047483

Cybercrime 2.0: When the Cloud Turns Dark
Niels Provos, Moheeb Abu Rajab, and Panayiotis Mavrommatis
http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1517412

Back to Top

References

1. Abadi, M. and Cardelli, L. Theory of objects. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Object-oriented Programming Tutorial; http://lucacardelli.name/Talks/1997-06%20A%20Theory%20of%20Object%20(ECOOP%20Tutorial).pdf.

2. DeWitt, D.J. SQL query optimization: Why is it so hard to get right? Keynote address at PASS Summit (2010); http://www.slideshare.net/GraySystemsLab/passsummit-2010-keynote-david-dewitt.

3. Gribble, S.D., Brewer, E.A., Hellerstein, J.M. and Culler, D. Scalable, distributed data structures for Internet service construction. In Proceedings of 4th Usenix Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (2000); http://static.usenix.org/event/osdi00/full_papers/gribble/gribble_html/dds.html.

4. Helland, P. Data on the outside versus data on the inside. In Proceedings of the 2005 CIDR Conference (Asilomar, CA, Jan. 4-7, 2005), 144153; http://www.cidrdb.org/cidr2005/papers/P12.pdf

5. Jefferson, D., et al. The status of the Time Warp operating system. ACM (1988); http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/rjw1/misc/VirtualTime/p738-jefferson.pdf.

6. Meijer, E. The world according to LINQ. ACM Queue 9, 8 (2011); http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2024658.

7. Meijer, E. and Bierman, G. A co-relational model of data for large shared data banks. ACM Queue 9 3 (2011); http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1961297.

8. Microsoft Research. Concurrent revisions; http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/revisions/default.aspx

9. Shapiro, M., Preguica, N., Baquero, C. and Zawirski, M. A comprehensive study of convergent and commutative replicated data types. Inria No. RR-7506 (2011); http://hal.inria.fr/inria-00555588/en/.

10. Vogels, W. Amazon's Dynamo. All Things Distributed (2007); http://www.allthingsdistributed.com/2007/10/amazons_dynamo.html.

Back to Top

Author

Erik Meijer (hjmmeijer@tudelft.com, emeijer@microsoft.com) has been working on "democratizing the cloud" for the past 15 years. He is perhaps best known for his work on the Haskell language and his contributions to LINQ and Rx (Reactive Framework). He is a part-time professor of cloud programming at TUDelft and runs the cloud programmability team in Microsoft's Server and Tools Business.

Back to Top

Figures

F1Figure 1. Normalized table declarations.

F2Figure 2. Total amount of purchase per category.

F3Figure 3. .NET generic dictionary class.

F4Figure 4. .NET concurrent dictionary class.

F5Figure 5. Hypothetical distributed dictionary class.

F6Figure 6. Computing high scores.

Back to Top

Tables

UT1Table. Computational effects.

Back to top


©2012 ACM  0001-0782/12/0900  $10.00

Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and full citation on the first page. Copyright for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or fee. Request permission to publish from permissions@acm.org or fax (212) 869-0481.

The Digital Library is published by the Association for Computing Machinery. Copyright © 2012 ACM, Inc.


Comments


CACM Administrator

The following letter was published in the Letters to the Editor in the January 2013 CACM (http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2013/1/158757).
--CACM Administrator

I write to support and expand on Erik Meijer's article "All Your Database Are Belong to Us" (Sept. 2012). Relational databases have been very useful in practice but are increasingly an obstacle to progress due to several limitations:

Inexpressiveness. Relational algebra cannot conveniently express negation or disjunction, much less the generalization/specialization connective required for ontologies;

Inconsistency non-robustness. Inconsistency robustness is information-system performance in the face of continually pervasive inconsistencies, a shift from the once-dominant paradigms of inconsistency denial and inconsistency elimination attempting to sweep inconsistencies under the rug. In practice, it is impossible to meet the requirement of the Relational Model that all information be consistent, but the Relational Model does not process inconsistent information correctly. Attempting to use transactions to remove contradictions from, say, relational medical information is tantamount to a distributed-denial-of-service attack due to the locking required to prevent new inconsistencies even as contradictions are being removed in the presence of interdependencies;

Information loss and lack of provenance. Once information is known, it should be known thereafter. All information stored or derived should have provenance; and

Inadequate performance and modularity. SQL lacks performance because it has parallelism but no concurrency abstraction. Needed are languages based on the Actor Model (http://www.robust11.org) to achieve performance, operational expressiveness, and inconsistency robustness. To promote modularity, a programming language type should be an interface that does not name its implementations contra to SQL, which requires taking dependencies on internals.

There is no practical way to repair the Relational Model to remove these limitations. Information processing and storage in computers should apply inconsistency-robust theories(1) processed using the Actor Model(2) in order to use argumentation about known contradictions using inconsistency-robust reasoning that does not make mistakes due to the assumption of consistency.

This way, expressivity, modularity, robustness, reliability, and performance beyond that of the obsolete Relational Model can be achieved because computing has changed dramatically both in scale and form in the four decades since its development. As a first step, a vibrant community, with its own international scientific society, the International Society for Inconsistency Robustness (http://www.isir.ws), conducted a refereed international symposium at Stanford University in 2011 (http://www.robust11.org); a call for participation is open for the next symposium in the summer of 2014 (http://www.ir14.org).

Carl Hewitt
Palo Alto, CA

REFERENCES

1. Hewitt, C. Health information systems technologies. Stanford University CS Colloquium EE380, June 6, 2012; http://HIST.carlhewitt.info

2. Hewitt, C., Meijer, E., and Szyperski, C. The Actor Model. Microsoft Channel 9 Videos; http://channel9.msdn.com/Shows/Going+Deep/Hewitt-Meijer-and-Szyperski-The-Actor-Model-everything-you-wanted-to-know-but-were-afraid-to-ask


CACM Administrator

The following letter was published in the Letters to the Editor in the December 2012 CACM (http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2012/12/157873).
--CACM Administrator

Communications readers have a right to expect accuracy. Sadly, accuracy is not always what they get. The article "All Your Database Are Belong to Us" by Erik Meijer (Sept. 2012) contains so many inaccuracies, confusions, and errors regarding "the database world" it is difficult to read coherently. The first paragraphs alone contain more egregious misstatements than most entire articles or papers. For the record: "The raw physical data model" is categorically not "at the center of the [relational database] universe." Queries do not "assume intimate details of the data representation (indexes, statistics, metadata)." While database technology relies on "The Closed World Assumption," this assumption has nothing to do with what the author apparently meant. Every phrase in "Exposing naked data and relying on declarative magic becomes a liability" relies on at least one counterfactual. "Objects should hide their private data representation, exposing it only via well-defined behavioral interfaces." But this is exactly what the relational model doesexcept (unlike OO) it adopts an interface discipline that makes ad hoc query and the like possible. "In the realm of [data] modelers, there is no notion of data abstraction." Astoundingly wrong. "[Database technology necessarily involves] a computational model with a limited set of operations." False. Although the (very powerful, well-defined, provably correct) required set of relational operations is small, the sky's the limit on derived relational operations or operations that define abstract data type/domain behavior.

The author's unfounded antipathy toward relational databases dominates even his application of CAP: "The problem with SQL databases... is the assumption that the data... meets a bunch of consistency constraints that is difficult to maintain in an open ['anything goes'?] distributed world." CAP does not eliminate this requirement; "...the hidden cost of forfeiting [system-enforced] consistency... is the need [for the programmer] to know the system's invariants."(1) Nor can programmers "...design their systems to be robust...to inconsistency." Once data inconsistency invades a computationally complete system, it is not even, in general, detectable, and all bets are off. Consistency must be enforced, hence constraints. The author seemed to equate detecting abnormal execution with enforcing logical data consistency. No wonder confusion abounds; CAP consistency is single-copy consistency, a subset of what ACID databases provide, yet the Gilbert/Lynch CAP proof relies on linearizability, a more stringent requirement than the serializability ACID databases need or use.

And so on... Deconstructing the entire article properly would take more time than we care to devote, but the foregoing should suffice to demonstrate its fallaciousness. We hope the author is not teaching these confusions, errors, logical inconsistencies, and fallacies.

It is difficult even to believe the article was peer reviewed. Indeed, it is truly distressing it did not demonstrate even minimal understanding of one of the most important contributions to computing: the relational model. We can only deplore Communications's role in promulgating such a lack of understanding.

C.J. Date
Healdsburg, CA

D. McGoveran
Boulder Creek, CA

REFERENCES

1. Brewer, E. CAP twelve years later: How the 'rules' have changed. IEEE Computer 45, 2 (Feb. 2012), 2329.

--------------------------------------------

AUTHOR'S RESPONSE:

The purpose of the article was not to criticize the relational model but to point out how building industrial-strength systems using today's relational database systems requires leaving the ivory tower and dealing with a morass of ad hoc extensions to the clean mathematical basis of first-order predicate logic. Rather than depend on pure sets and relations, developers need to think in terms of (un)ordered multisets. For the sake of efficiency and lock-contention avoidance, transactions allow for various isolation levels that clearly violate the ACID guarantees of Platonic transactions. The article also considered whether in the new world of the Cloud we should view as complementary computational models that fundamentally address loosely coupled distributed systems, like Carl Hewitt's Actors.

Erik Meijer, Delft
The Netherlands


Displaying all 2 comments