<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Coordination Avoidance in Database Systems (Extended Version) · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1402.2237/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1402.2237/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Coordination Avoidance in Database Systems (Extended Version) — mentioned by Jweb_Guru</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9779459</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1402.2237:9779459</guid><pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2015 17:25:47 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;I am afraid your premise is incorrect. Foreign keys can be enforced (particularly on insert-only or insert-mostly workloads) with very little contention, even in a distributed system: http://www.bailis.org/papers/ramp-sigmod2014.pdf And lest you think there is some hidden constant factor here that destroys real performance at the cost of &amp;quot;scalability,&amp;quot; the techniques from that paper were used to completely destroy the TPC-C benchmark: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.2237.pdf Admittedly this stuff is not yet implemented in traditional RDBMSes, but there is absolutely no reason why it could not be…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1402.2237/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.DB</category></item></channel></rss>
