Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

A Critique of the CAP Theorem

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1509.05393 v2 pith:3WOEFGLV submitted 2015-09-17 cs.DC cs.DB

classification cs.DCcs.DB
keywords databasessomeconsistentdistributednetworkproblemsreasoningsystems
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The CAP Theorem is a frequently cited impossibility result in distributed systems, especially among NoSQL distributed databases. In this paper we survey some of the confusion about the meaning of CAP, including inconsistencies and ambiguities in its definitions, and we highlight some problems in its formalization. CAP is often interpreted as proof that eventually consistent databases have better availability properties than strongly consistent databases; although there is some truth in this, we show that more careful reasoning is required. These problems cast doubt on the utility of CAP as a tool for reasoning about trade-offs in practical systems. As alternative to CAP, we propose a "delay-sensitivity" framework, which analyzes the sensitivity of operation latency to network delay, and which may help practitioners reason about the trade-offs between consistency guarantees and tolerance of network faults.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Framework for Consistency Models in Distributed Systems

    cs.DC 2024-11 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    A new axiomatic framework unifies classic consistency models and proves CLAM, a trilemma showing wait-free distributed systems must sacrifice one of closed past, local visibility, or arbitration.

  2. Light Cone Consistency: Closure, Ordering, and the Single-Observer Boundary

    cs.DC 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Light Cone Consistency unifies 50+ consistency models as configurations of causal closure, fork resolution, and timeliness on causal logs and shows that CAP, FLP, and AFC form an entangled impossibility triangle that ...

  3. Did we miss P In CAP? Partial Progress Conjecture under Asynchrony

    cs.DC 2024-12 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    CASSANDRA lets partitioned replicas speculatively order requests during a partition and claims that at least one partition's transactions will persist after recovery.

Pith tools