You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We might want to investigate how to best handle data loss in a variety of scenarios. This issue mostly stems from the buffering nature of the b-epsilon tree, as more data, than actually semantically present, is stored, with individual copies of data stored at each layer of the tree. A simple fix would be here to congregate data when we try to synchronize the storage state invoked by dropping the database.
Considering one of the major factors of NVRAM, which we want to include soon, is the improved resilience, this might be worth implementing.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
We might want to investigate how to best handle data loss in a variety of scenarios. This issue mostly stems from the buffering nature of the b-epsilon tree, as more data, than actually semantically present, is stored, with individual copies of data stored at each layer of the tree. A simple fix would be here to congregate data when we try to synchronize the storage state invoked by dropping the database.
Considering one of the major factors of NVRAM, which we want to include soon, is the improved resilience, this might be worth implementing.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: