Mike Stonebraker

And when they did Spanner, Spanner had a conventional transactional system.

And so Google completely abandoned eventual consistency.

and completely abandoned MapReduce.

So the trade-off's basically correctness for performance.

So it's performance versus data integrity.

And if you don't care about your data, then you're willing to deal with bad things happening.

We talked to them before the

2011 paper and said, why don't we partner up and do some stuff?

And they weren't interested.

Well, I gave a talk at Amazon maybe three years ago, and I told them all the things I thought they were doing wrong.

And I think Amazon's problem is that they are supporting, you know,

15 different database systems and that's about 12 too many.

So I think they have their own culture and I said you're supporting too many database systems and at this point they haven't chosen to retire any of them.

Why do you say that the 15 should be three?

Well, they're supporting a graph-based database system.

And it's well understood that a graph-based database system is almost never the performant option.

And so if you want a graph, if you want, if you like the idea of having a user interface that deals with nodes and edges, that's fine.

Put, put a layer on top of a relational database system that gives you that user model.

And so most of their database systems, there's some other of their database systems that better at what it does than, than it is.

And so the answer is you should retire any database system that isn't performant