Comparing Cassandra to FoundationDB is like comparing a spreadsheet in Google Sheets to PostgreSQL.

I mean, both kind of store data, and multiple users can change the data that is being stored. The story of what you'll get back and when (if ever), however, is rather different.

I would respectfully suggest that anyone that wants to comment in distributed database discussions should be familiar with https://jepsen.io/consistency/models and https://antithesis.com/resources/reliability_glossary/ and use the wording found there.

If your eyes gloss over, because there is a lot of complex stuff there, it is likely that your comments will not have much value.

I've worked with Cassandra for ten years, you don't think I understand consistency and availability tradeoffs?

Are you acting like FDB has magically solved the CAP theorem? They've beaten mathematics?

If you want to talk about low-value comments, yours is up there. Mine was a basic question about how FDB streams large distributed datasets in a partition.

Do you have any insights, or are you just an asshole?

Many years later did cassandra get reliable. Fdb was the gold standard that set the bar. They did not need jepsen tests to implement it properly.