BLOG

An In-Depth Exploration of Distributed Databases and Consistency Models

By [x]cube LABS
Published: Feb 21 2024

When it comes to today’s digital landscape, the relentless growth of data generation, the insatiable demand for always-on applications, and the rise of globally distributed user bases have propelled distributed databases to the forefront of modern data management. Their inherent potential to scale, withstand faults, and deliver fast responses unlocks new possibilities for businesses and organizations. However, managing these systems comes with challenges, specifically centering around the intricate balance between data consistency and overall system performance.

What are distributed databases?

Let’s first revisit the compelling reasons why distributed databases take center stage in today’s technological landscape:

Horizontal Scalability: Traditional centralized databases, bound to a single server, hit limits when data volume or query load soar. Distributed databases combat this challenge by allowing you to seamlessly add additional nodes (servers) to the network. This horizontal scaling provides near-linear increases in storage and processing capabilities.
Fault Tolerance: Single points of failure cripple centralized systems. In a distributed database, even if nodes malfunction, redundancy ensures the remaining nodes retain functionality, guaranteeing high availability – an essential requirement for mission-critical applications.
Geographic Performance: Decentralization allows organizations to store data closer to where people access it. This distributed presence dramatically reduces latency, leading to snappier applications and more satisfied users dispersed around the globe.
Flexibility: Diverse workloads may have different consistency requirements. A distributed database can often support multiple consistency models, allowing for nuanced tuning to ensure the right balance for diverse applications.

The Essence of Consistency Models

While their benefits are undeniable, distributed databases introduce the inherent tension between data consistency and system performance. Let’s unpack what this means:

The Ideal World: Ideally, any client reading data in a distributed system immediately sees the latest version regardless of which node they happen to access. This perfect world of instant global consistency is “strong consistency.” Unfortunately, in the real world, it comes at a substantial cost to performance.
Network Uncertainties: Data in distributed databases lives on numerous machines, potentially separated by distance. Every write operation needs to be communicated to all the nodes to maintain consistency. The unpredictable nature of networks (delays, failures) and the very laws of physics make guaranteeing absolute real-time synchronization between nodes costly.

This is where consistency models offer a pragmatic path forward. A consistency model is a carefully crafted contract between the distributed database and its users. This contract outlines the rules of engagement: what level of data consistency is guaranteed under various scenarios and circumstances. By relaxing the notion of strict consistency, different models offer strategic trade-offs between data accuracy, system performance (speed), and availability (uptime).

Key Consistency Models: A Deep Dive

Let’s dive into some of the most prevalent consistency models:

Strong Consistency (Linearizability, Sequential Consistency): The pinnacle of consistency. In strongly consistent systems, any read operation on any node must return the most recent write or indicate an error. This implies real-time synchronization across the system, leading to potential bottlenecks and higher latency. Financial applications where precise, up-to-the-second account balances are crucial may opt for this model.
Eventual Consistency: At the other end of the spectrum, eventual consistency models embrace inherent propagation delays in exchange for better performance and availability. Writes may take time to reach all nodes of the system. During this temporary window, reads may yield previous versions of data. Eventually, if no more updates occur, all nodes converge to the same state. Social media feeds, where a slight delay in seeing newly posted content is acceptable, are often suitable candidates for this model.
Causal Consistency: Causal consistency offers a valuable middle ground, ensuring order with writes with dependency relationships. If Process A’s update influences Process B’s update, causal consistency guarantees readers will see Process B’s updates only after seeing Process A’s. This model finds relevance in use cases like collaborative editing or threaded discussions.
Bounded Staleness: Limits how outdated the data observed by a read can be. You choose a ‘staleness’ threshold (e.g., 5 seconds, 1 minute). Ensures readers don’t see data older than this threshold, a reasonable solution for displaying dashboards with near-real-time updates.
Monotonic Reads: This model prohibits ‘going back in time.’ Once a client observes a certain value, subsequent reads won’t return an older version. Imagine product inventory levels – they should never “rewind” to show more stock in the past than is currently available.
Read Your Writes: Guarantees a client will always see the results of its own writes. Useful in systems where users expect their actions (e.g., making a comment) to be immediately reflected, even if global update propagation hasn’t been completed yet.

Beyond the CAP Theorem

It’s vital to note the connection between consistency models and the famous CAP Theorem. In distributed systems, the CAP Theorem posits it’s impossible to have all three simultaneously:

Consistency: Every read yields the latest write
Availability: All nodes operate, making the system always responsive
Partition Tolerance: Can survive network failures that split nodes in the cluster

Strong consistency prioritizes consistency over availability under network partitioning. Conversely, eventual consistency favors availability even in the face of partitions. Understanding this theorem helps illuminate the inherent trade-offs behind various consistency models.

The Role of Distributed Database Technologies

The principles of distributed databases and consistency models underpin many well-known technologies:

Relational Databases: Established players like MySQL and PostgreSQL now include options for replication and clustering, giving them distributed capabilities.
NoSQL Databases: Cassandra, MongoDB, and DynamoDB are designed from the ground up for distribution. They excel at different application patterns and have varying consistency models.
Consensus Algorithms: Paxos and Raft are fundamental building blocks for ensuring consistency in strongly consistent distributed systems.

Choosing the Right Consistency Model

There’s no single “best” consistency model. Selection depends heavily on the specific nature of your application:

Data Sensitivity: How critical is real-time accuracy? Is the risk of inaccurate reads acceptable for user experience or business results?
Performance Targets: Is low latency vital, or is slight delay permissible?
System Architecture: Do you expect geographically dispersed nodes, or will everything reside in a tightly-coupled data center?

Frequently Asked Questions:

What is a distributed database example?

Cassandra: Apache Cassandra is a highly scalable, high-performance distributed database designed to handle large amounts of data across many commodity servers, providing high availability with no single point of failure.

Is SQL a distributed database?

SQL (Structured Query Language) itself is not a database but a language used for managing and querying relational databases. However, there are SQL-based distributed databases like Google Spanner and CockroachDB that support SQL syntax for querying distributed data.

Is MongoDB a distributed database?

Yes, MongoDB is considered a distributed database. It is a NoSQL database that supports horizontal scaling through sharding, distributing data across multiple machines or clusters to handle large data volumes and provide high availability.

What are the four different types of distributed database systems?

Homogeneous Distributed Databases: All physical locations use the same DBMS.
Heterogeneous Distributed Databases: Different locations may use different types of DBMSs.
Federated or Multidatabase Systems: A collection of cooperating but autonomous database systems.
Fragmentation, Replication, and Allocation: This type refers to the distribution techniques used within distributed databases. Fragmentation divides the database into different parts (fragments) and distributes them. Replication copies fragments to multiple locations. Allocation involves strategies for placing the fragments or replicas across the network to optimize performance and reliability.

Conclusion

Distributed databases are a potent tool for harnessing the power of scalability, resilience, and geographic proximity to meet modern application demands. Mastering consistency models is a vital step in designing and managing distributed systems effectively. This understanding allows architects and developers to make informed trade-offs, tailoring data guarantees to match the specific needs of their applications and users.

How can [x]cube LABS Help?

[x]cube LABS’s teams of product owners and experts have worked with global brands such as Panini, Mann+Hummel, tradeMONSTER, and others to deliver over 950 successful digital products, resulting in the creation of new digital lines of revenue and entirely new businesses. With over 30 global product design and development awards, [x]cube LABS has established itself among global enterprises’ top digital transformation partners.

Why work with [x]cube LABS?

Founder-led engineering teams:

Our co-founders and tech architects are deeply involved in projects and are unafraid to get their hands dirty.

Deep technical leadership:

Our tech leaders have spent decades solving complex technical problems. Having them on your project is like instantly plugging into thousands of person-hours of real-life experience.

Stringent induction and training:

We are obsessed with crafting top-quality products. We hire only the best hands-on talent. We train them like Navy Seals to meet our standards of software craftsmanship.