I am still not able to relate in real-time how nosql is beneficial whereas we have indexes too in traditional RDBMS's. If someone can suggest columnar databases advantages in real application particularly in terms of using structure, semistructured or unstructured data.
Largely, it depends on what you want your datastore to do. If you want to be able to scale to meet storage or operational demands, a RDBMS can only take you so far.
It comes down how you can scale to meet demand. A RDBMS is really only capable of scaling vertically. That is, add more RAM, add more disk, etc. A distributed (NoSQL) database makes scaling easier by allowing you to add more machine instances. This is known as scaling horizontally.
Here's an example using Cassandra:
Let's say I have a 3 node cluster, and my keyspace (database) is also configured with a replication factor (RF) of 3. This means that each node is responsible for 100% of the data. I load my data, and it takes up 100GB of disk space (on each node). Now, while I might have 300GB of data total in my cluster, a single copy of my data is 100GB.
So my product team comes to me and says they need to double the amount of data they have. I know that I built their 3 node cluster with 200GB drives. If I did nothing, those drives would pretty much fill-up (and if they didn't they wouldn't leave room for much else).
Now it's up to me to scale the cluster to meet their space demands. I'll start by adding 3 new nodes to the cluster (for a total of 6), but I'll leave my RF at 3. This makes each node responsible for 50% of the data, or 50GB. When my product team loads more data to meet their "doubling" requirement, each node should climb back up to about 100GB. A single copy of the data is now 200GB. But with each node responsible for 50%, each 200GB drive still only has 100GB.
Example #2:
Let's say that the cluster above with 6 nodes is capable of supporting an operational load of 10,000 operations per second (ops). My product team comes to me again, saying that for the holiday season they project needing to support 20,000 ops. As the current cluster can only support half of that, it will choke under the intense throughput, and one or more nodes may crash.
As Cassandra scales linearly, the way to achieve this is to (again) double the size of the cluster. So I increase it from 6 nodes to 12 nodes, while still maintaining my RF of 3. After running some performance testing, they verify that it can indeed support 20,000 ops. As a single copy of my data is 200GB, the total data footprint remains 600GB. With 12 nodes, each node is now responsible for only 25% of the data, or 50GB.
So scalability is the advantage. But how about modeling the data? The main idea in distributed database modeling, is two-fold:
Build a table structure which is keyed to distribute well. We don't want uneven amounts of data on each node.
Build the key on the table so that it matches our query requirements.
One of the drawbacks of a NoSQL database, is that your query patterns become restricted. In an effort to cut down on network time, you want to ensure that your query can be served by a single node.
This usually means using natural keys, as those are more in-line with what you are asking of your data. Surrogate keys (alpha, numerical, or both) distribute well, but aren't really useful for querying. User "Bob Jones" might be id "3582346556230" in my system. But when I want to query Bob's data, I'll probably never want to ask for it by "3582346556230," because that doesn't mean anything to the application or the context in which the data is used.
Also, you want your data to have structure. Unstructured data is un-queryable data. Simple as that. If you want unstructured data to be queryable, you need to parse-out its identifying aspects to be used as keys. You don't want to "search" or run SELECT * FROM queries. Full table scans in NoSQL databases are even more resource consuming than their RDBMS counterparts, because they have to check each node, sort through replicas, and thus incurs extra network time.
NoSQL databases give you the ability to scale (for increases in data or demand). But it's important to note that their scalability can make some things (which a RDBMS might be good at), more difficult than you're used to.
The R in RDBMS, relational, is the biggest thing missing from Mongo. There's very little to no way to make the database understand how entries in different tables collections relate to each other. One of the big strengths of RDBMSs is the ability to define constraints which the database will enforce, most typically foreign key constraints which ensure that an id in one table refers to an existing id in another table.
One requirement for the database to be able to enforce such constraints is obviously that everything needs to go through one source of truth and there needs to be one central entity cross-checking the data; it cannot be decentralised since discrepancies between two different primary sources can lead to data inconsistencies.
In Mongo, each data blob is pretty much independent. It doesn't refer to other entries in any way enforced by the database. Mongo also has weak to no ACID guarantees, meaning there's little protection against race condition inserts or updates. In a word: Mongo makes little guarantees with regards to data consistency and mostly offloads these kinds of concerns to the application layer. That allows it to work more decentralised.
E.g. a good way to scale Mongo is to have many secondary servers which replicate a primary server for read-only access. There's no guarantee that the primary and secondaries will be in sync at any given time, it may take a couple of seconds for data written to the primary to trickle to the secondaries. But this allows you to have a virtually unlimited number of secondary read-only servers, which is great for scaling a database under heavy read load.
The way specifically Mongo handles its clusters also allows it to have a very high uptime, as the cluster will reorganise itself into primaries and secondaries automatically if a server goes down. This even allows for rolling maintenance without any client downtime.
Not having to enforce complex constraints or transaction consistency during writing also allows a more fire-and-forget style of writing to the database, which can be much faster. Again, at the cost of allowing inconsistent data. Which is why most writing pretty much means atomically updating a single document in a collection with no guarantees about other documents, which is something of a different paradigm than RDBMS transactional updates across many tables.
I would not recommend Mongo for storing things like a financial ledger, which heavily relies on transactional guarantees for consistency. However, things like Twitter are a perfect case for it: many independent snippets of data which must be read by a massive number of clients.
Related
I've tried to figure out what will be the best use cases that suit for Amazon dynamoDB.
When I googled most of the blogs says DyanmoDb will be used only for a large amount of data (BigData).
I'm having a background of relational DB. NoSQL DB is new for me.So when I've tried to relate this to normal relation DB knowledge.
Most of the concepts related to DynamoDb is to create a schema-less table with partition keys/sort keys. And try to query them based on the keys.Also, there is no such concept of stored procedure which makes queries easier and simple.
If we managing such huge Data's doing such complex queries each and every time to retrieve data will be the correct approach without a stored procedure?
Note: I've maybe had a wrong understanding of the concept. So, please anyone clear my thoughts here
Thanks in advance
Jay
In short, systems like DynamoDB are designed to support big data sets (too big to fit a single server) and high write/read throughput by scaling horizontally, as opposed to scaling vertically, which is the more common approach for relational databases historically.
The main approach to support horizontal scalability is by partitioning data, i.e. a data set is split into multiple pieces and distributed among multiple servers. This way it may use more storage and more IOPS, allowing bigger data sets and higher read/write throughput.
However, data partitioning makes it difficult to support complex queries, such as joins etc., as data is distributed among multiple physical servers. As for stored procedures, they are not supported for the same reason - historically the idea behind stored procedures is data locality, i.e. they run on the server near the data without network operations, however, if data is distributed among multiple servers, this benefit disappears (at least in the form of stored procedure).
Therefore the most efficient way to query data from such systems is by record key, as data partitioning is based on a key and it's easy to figure out where a record lives physically for a given key. While many such systems also support secondary indexes, they are usually restricted in some way or expensive and may not be enough to satisfy requirements in a complex software solution. A quite common approach is to have a complementary indexing/query solution (I've seen solutions based on Elasticsearch and Solr), which allows running complex queries over some fragments of records to figure out a record key, which then used to load the record.
If, as an example, you have a blogging website done with MongoDB to store data
Is it better to have a database per blogger? given that their blogs and comments are completely independent from other bloggers. Or just lump everything together? or it doesn't make too much difference?
I'm imagining the same web app (not independent webs/urls per blogger) is used by all bloggers. So when someone logs in / accesses the blog the code would find the right database to use and haul data out it.
Does this have any downsides? is this normal for handling these kinds of things?
I am making plenty of assumptions about your needs. But, generally, there are 3 paths to multi-tenant apps in MongoDB:
Single collection per customer; never, ever do this.
Single database per customer. Good. You will trade off free space if your product is on the freemium model. Either way, you will want to run with "smallfiles" option. As stated, you will build the routing system for your environment. Thus, you will want to connect to the proper database for the proper customer.
customer_id key per document + path slug. Good. The trade off here is recovery of free space. Traditionally, MongoDB does not recover space used by deleted documents. Thus customers creating and deleting blog posts would create unused space. By using 'usePowerOf2Sizes' collections, you will recover disk space of deleted documents. However, 'usePowerOf2Sizes' creates bloated padding space.
To get over the disk space padding, take a look at the compression used here: http://blog.appsignal.com/blog/2013/07/30/taming-mongodb-disk-usage.html
Recap, I would recommend using customer_id plus the compression. It gives you the best of both worlds.
As stated in the comments under the original question, there's really no performance benefit to splitting up your MongoDB store into separate databases per blogger, due to the overhead of having each database and minimum storage.
On the flipside: You are going to make some cross-user analysis more difficult for yourself. As a very simple example, based on your blogging example: Imagine you want to look at average post count per user. This is pretty simple if your users (and posts) are in the same database (typically in the same collections), and you can likely use the aggregation framework for this task. This task will not be so straightforward with an unbounded number of databases, where you'll need to first enumerate all databases, then perform your aggregations/averaging once per database. This could end up being a slower operation than within a single-database architecture.
Having said all that: You still might have some reason to split data across databases. Maybe you have to separate data due to legal reasons, or to ensure customers that their sensitive data won't be commingled with other companies' data. Maybe your customer needs full read/write access to their database, and so you use per-database configuration as a security boundary. I'm sure there are other reasons as well...
It is perfectly normal to allocate 100's of databases if that is all you will see.
Database separation can have many benefits. They can be sharded independantly, since sharding occurs on database level. Databases also have the upside of being completely isolated instances (including locks) of the data within them (good example: space allocation occurs on database level).
This means they can be moved around the network as users data is accessed more and since a single users data might not be that big it would be easier than moving all of your users data to a more powerful node.
However, you must consider the problematic sides in the application of managing the connections to each database. There will be over head on it and you will need to have far more complex coding than what is considered standard.
Considering space, you will not see a drastic usage of space. The most problematic part of using separate databases is the journal allocation. Every collection you use in separate databases will also, of course, pre-allocate itself but this is actually considered one of the upsides to using database separation (movement of databases between nodes, isolation).
So the space problem is really only a problem if your scenario makes it one.
is this normal for handling these kinds of things?
For a normal blogger site, no, and I do not know enough about the complexities of your scenario to say any different. Normal operation would be to lump everything together, since you could see into the region of 1,000's maybe 1,000,000's of users and database separation just won't scale over that very well.
I'm planning a product that will process updates from multiple data feeds. Input-data is guesstimated to be a total of 100Mbps stream containing 100 byte sized messages. These messages contain several data fields that needs to be checked for correlation with the existing data set within the application. If a input-message correlates with an existing data record, then the input-message will update the existing data-record, if not: it will create a new record. It is assumed that data are updated every 3 seconds in average.
The correlation process is assumed to be a bottleneck, and thus I intend to make our product able to run balanced in multiple processes if needed (most likely on a separate hardware or VM). Somewhat in the vicinity of Space-based architecture. I'd then like a shared storage between my processes so that all existing data records are visible to all the running processes. The shared storage will have to fetch possible candidates for correlation through a query/search based on some attributes (e.g. elevation). It will have to offer configuring warm redundancy, and a possibility to store snapshots every 5 minutes for logging.
Everything seems to be pointing towards MongoDB, but I'd like a confirmation from you that MongoDB will meet my needs. So do you think it is a go?
-Thank you
NB: I am not considering a relational database because we want to focus all coding in our application, instead of having to make 'stored procedures'/'functions' in a separate environment to optimize the performance of our system. Further, the data is diverse and I don't want to try normalize it into a schema.
Yes, MongoDB will meet your needs. I think the following aspects of your description are particularly relevant in your DB selection decision:
1. An update happens every 3 seconds
MongoDB has a database level write-lock (usually short lived) that blocks read operations. This means that you want will want to ensure that you have enough memory to fit your working set, and you will generally not run into any write-lock issues. Note that bulk inserts will hold the write lock for longer.
If you are sharding, you will want to consider shard keys that allow for write scaling i.e. distribute writes on different shards.
2. Shared storage for multiple processes
This is a pretty common scenario; in fact, many MongoDB deployments are expected be accessed from multiple processes concurrently. Unlike the write-lock, the read-lock does not block other reads.
3. Warm redundancy
Supported through MongoDB replication. If you'd like to read from secondary server(s) you will need to set the Read Preference to secondaryPreferred in your driver.
I am working on a project were we are batch loading and storing huge volume of data in Oracle database which is constantly getting queried via Hibernate against this 100+ million records table (the reads are much more frequent than writes).
To speed things up we are using Lucene for some of queries (especially geo bounding box queries) and Hibernate second level cache but thats still not enough. We still have bottleneck in Hibernate queries against Oracle (we dont cache 100+ million table entities in Hibernate second level cache due to lack of that much memory).
What additional NoSQL solutions (apart from Lucene) I can leverage in this situation?
Some options I am thinking of are:
Use distributed ehcache (Terracotta) for Hibernate second level to leverage more memory across machines and reduce duplicate caches (right now each VM has its own cache).
To completely use in memory SQL database like H2 but unfortunately those solutions require loading 100+ mln tables into single VM.
Use Lucene for querying and BigTable (or distributed hashmap) for entity lookup by id.
What BigTable implementation will be suitable for this? I was considering HBase.
Use MongoDB for storing data and for querying and lookup by id.
recommending Cassandra with ElasticSearch for a scalable system (100 million is nothing for them). Use cassandra for all your data and ES for ad hoc and geo queries. Then you can kill your entire legacy stack. You may need a MQ system like rabbitmq for data sync between Cass. and ES.
It really depends on your data sets. The number one rule to NoSQL design is to define your query scenarios first. Once you really understand how you want to query the data then you can look into the various NoSQL solutions out there. The default unit of distribution is key. Therefore you need to remember that you need to be able to split your data between your node machines effectively otherwise you will end up with a horizontally scalable system with all the work still being done on one node (albeit better queries depending on the case).
You also need to think back to CAP theorem, most NoSQL databases are eventually consistent (CP or AP) while traditional Relational DBMS are CA. This will impact the way you handle data and creation of certain things, for example key generation can be come trickery.
Also remember than in some systems such as HBase there is no indexing concept. All your indexes will need to be built by your application logic and any updates and deletes will need to be managed as such. With Mongo you can actually create indexes on fields and query them relatively quickly, there is also the possibility to integrate Solr with Mongo. You don’t just need to query by ID in Mongo like you do in HBase which is a column family (aka Google BigTable style database) where you essentially have nested key-value pairs.
So once again it comes to your data, what you want to store, how you plan to store it, and most importantly how you want to access it. The Lily project looks very promising. THe work I am involved with we take a large amount of data from the web and we store it, analyse it, strip it down, parse it, analyse it, stream it, update it etc etc. We dont just use one system but many which are best suited to the job at hand. For this process we use different systems at different stages as it gives us fast access where we need it, provides the ability to stream and analyse data in real-time and importantly, keep track of everything as we go (as data loss in a prod system is a big deal) . I am using Hadoop, HBase, Hive, MongoDB, Solr, MySQL and even good old text files. Remember that to productionize a system using these technogies is a bit harder than installing Oracle on a server, some releases are not as stable and you really need to do your testing first. At the end of the day it really depends on the level of business resistance and the mission-critical nature of your system.
Another path that no one thus far has mentioned is NewSQL - i.e. Horizontally scalable RDBMSs... There are a few out there like MySQL cluster (i think) and VoltDB which may suit your cause.
Again it comes to understanding your data and the access patterns, NoSQL systems are also Non-Rel i.e. non-relational and are there for better suit to non-relational data sets. If your data is inherently relational and you need some SQL query features that really need to do things like Cartesian products (aka joins) then you may well be better of sticking with Oracle and investing some time in indexing, sharding and performance tuning.
My advice would be to actually play around with a few different systems. Look at;
MongoDB - Document - CP
CouchDB - Document - AP
Redis - In memory key-value (not column family) - CP
Cassandra - Column Family - Available & Partition Tolerant (AP)
HBase - Column Family - Consistent & Partition Tolerant (CP)
Hadoop/Hive
VoltDB - A really good looking product, a relation database that is distributed and might work for your case (may be an easier move). They also seem to provide enterprise support which may be more suited for a prod env (i.e. give business users a sense of security).
Any way thats my 2c. Playing around with the systems is really the only way your going to find out what really works for your case.
As you suggest MongoDB (or any similar NoSQL persistence solution) is an appropriate fit for you. We've run tests with significantly larger data sets than the one you're suggesting on MongoDB and it works fine. Especially if you're read heavy MongoDB's sharding and/or distributing reads across replicate set members will allow you to speed up your queries significantly. If your usecase allows for keeping your indexes right balanced your goal of getting close to 20ms queries should become feasable without further caching.
You should also check out the Lily project (lilyproject.org). They have integrated HBase with Solr. Internally they use message queues to keep Solr in sync with HBase. This allows them to have the speed of solr indexing (sharding and replication), backed by a highly reliable data storage system.
you could group requests & split them specific to a set of data & have a single (or a group of servers) process that, here you can have the data available in the cache to improve performance.
e.g.,
say, employee & availability data are handled using 10 tables, these can be handled b a small group of server (s) when you configure hibernate cache to load & handle requests.
for this to work you need a load balancer (which balances load by business scenario).
not sure how much of it can be implemented here.
At the 100M records your bottleneck is likely Hibernate, not Oracle. Our customers routinely have billions of records in the individual fact tables of our Oracle-based data warehouse and it handles them fine.
What kind of queries do you execute on your table?
Quoting: http://gigaom.com/cloud/facebook-trapped-in-mysql-fate-worse-than-death/
There have been various attempts to
overcome SQL’s performance and
scalability problems, including the
buzzworthy NoSQL movement that burst
onto the scene a couple of years ago.
However, it was quickly discovered
that while NoSQL might be faster and
scale better, it did so at the expense
of ACID consistency.
Wait - am I reading that wrongly?
Does it mean that if I use NoSQL, we can expect transactions to be corrupted (albeit I daresay at a very low percentage)?
It's actually true and yet also a bit false. It's not about corruption it's about seeing something different during a (limited) period.
The real thing here is the CAP theorem which simply states you can only choose two of the following three:
Consistency (all nodes see the same data at the same time)
Availability (a guarantee that every request receives a response about whether it was successful or failed)
Partition
tolerance (the system continues to operate despite arbitrary message loss)
The traditional SQL systems choose to drop "Partition tolerance" where many (not all) of the NoSQL systems choose to drop "Consistency".
More precise: They drop "Strong Consistency" and select a more relaxed Consistency model like "Eventual Consistency".
So the data will be consistent when viewed from various perspectives, just not right away.
NoSQL solutions are usually designed to overcome SQL's scale limitations. Those scale limitations are explained by the CAP theorem. Understanding CAP is key to understanding why NoSQL systems tend to drop support for ACID.
So let me explain CAP in purely intuitive terms. First, what C, A and P mean:
Consistency: From the standpoint of an external observer, each "transaction" either fully completed or is fully rolled back. For example, when making an amazon purchase the purchase confirmation, order status update, inventory reduction etc should all appear 'in sync' regardless of the internal partitioning into sub-systems
Availability: 100% of requests are completed successfully.
Partition Tolerance: Any given request can be completed even if a subset of nodes in the system are unavailable.
What do these imply from a system design standpoint? what is the tension which CAP defines?
To achieve P, we needs replicas. Lots of em! The more replicas we keep, the better the chances are that any piece of data we need will be available even if some nodes are offline. For absolute "P" we should replicate every single data item to every node in the system. (Obviously in real life we compromise on 2, 3, etc)
To achieve A, we need no single point of failure. That means that "primary/secondary" or "master/slave" replication configurations go out the window since the master/primary is a single point of failure. We need to go with multiple master configurations. To achieve absolute "A", any single replica must be able to handle reads and writes independently of the other replicas. (in reality we compromise on async, queue based, quorums, etc)
To achieve C, we need a "single version of truth" in the system. Meaning that if I write to node A and then immediately read back from node B, node B should return the up-to-date value. Obviously this can't happen in a truly distributed multi-master system.
So, what is the "correct" solution to the problem? It details really depend on your requirements, but the general approach is to loosen up some of the constraints, and to compromise on the others.
For example, to achieve a "full write consistency" guarantee in a system with n replicas, the # of reads + the # of writes must be greater or equal to n : r + w >= n. This is easy to explain with an example: if I store each item on 3 replicas, then I have a few options to guarantee consistency:
A) I can write the item to all 3 replicas and then read from any one of the 3 and be confident I'm getting the latest version B) I can write item to one of the replicas, and then read all 3 replicas and choose the last of the 3 results C) I can write to 2 out of the 3 replicas, and read from 2 out of the 3 replicas, and I am guaranteed that I'll have the latest version on one of them.
Of course, the rule above assumes that no nodes have gone down in the meantime. To ensure P + C you will need to be even more paranoid...
There are also a near-infinite number of 'implementation' hacks - for example the storage layer might fail the call if it can't write to a minimal quorum, but might continue to propagate the updates to additional nodes even after returning success. Or, it might loosen the semantic guarantees and push the responsibility of merging versioning conflicts up to the business layer (this is what Amazon's Dynamo did).
Different subsets of data can have different guarantees (ie single point of failure might be OK for critical data, or it might be OK to block on your write request until the minimal # of write replicas have successfully written the new version)
The patterns for solving the 90% case already exist, but each NoSQL solution applies them in different configurations. The patterns are things like partitioning (stable/hash-based or variable/lookup-based), redundancy and replication, in memory-caches, distributed algorithms such as map/reduce.
When you drill down into those patterns, the underlying algorithms are also fairly universal: version vectors, merckle trees, DHTs, gossip protocols, etc.
It does not mean that transactions will be corrupted. In fact, many NoSQL systems do not use transactions at all! Some NoSQL systems may sometimes lose records (e.g. MongoDB when you do "fire and forget" inserts rather than "safe" ones), but often this is a design choice, not something you're stuck with.
If you need true transactional semantics (perhaps you are building a bank accounting application), use a database that supports them.
First, asking if NoSql is 100% ACID 100% of the time is a bit of a meaningless question. It's like asking "Are dogs 100% protective 100% of the time?" There are some dogs that are protective (or can be trained to be) such as German Shepherds or Doberman Pincers. There are other dogs that could care less about protecting anyone.
NoSql is the label of a movement, and not a specific technology. There are several different types of NoSql databases. There are document stores, such as MongoDb. There are graph databases such as Neo4j. There are key-value stores such as cassandra.
Each of these serve a different purpose. I've worked with a proprietary database that could be classified as a NoSql database, it's not 100% ACID, but it doesn't need to be. It's a write once, read many database. I think it gets built once a quarter (or once a month?) and then is read 1000s of time a day.
There is a lot of different NoSQL store types and implementations. Every of them can solve trade-offs between consistency and performance differently. The best you can get is a tunable framework.
Also the sentence "it was quickly discovered" from you citation is plainly stupid, this is no surprising discovery but a proven fact with deep theoretical roots.
In general, it's not that any given update would fail to save or get corrupted -- these are obviously going to be a very big issue for any database.
Where they fail on ACID is in data retrieval.
Consider a NoSQL DB which is replicated across numerous servers to allow high-speed access for a busy site.
And lets say the site owners update an article on the site with some new information.
In a typical NoSQL database in this scenario, the update would immediately only affect one of the nodes. Any queries made to the site on the other nodes would not reflect the change right away. In fact, as the data is replicated across the site, different users may be given different content despite querying at the same time. The data could take some time to propagate across all the nodes.
Conversely, in a transactional ACID compliant SQL database, the DB would have to be sure that all nodes had completed the update before any of them could be allowed to serve the new data.
This allows the site to retain high performance and page caching by sacrificing the guarantee that any given page will be absolutely up to date at an given moment.
In fact, if you consider it like this, the DNS system can be considered to be a specialised NoSQL database. If a domain name is updated in DNS, it can take several days for the new data to propagate throughout the internet (depending on TTL configuration).
All this makes NoSQL a useful tool for data such as web site content, where it doesn't necessarily matter that a page isn't instantly up-to-date and consistent as long as it is reasonably up-to-date.
On the other hand, though, it does mean that it would be a very bad idea to use a NoSQL database for a system which does require consistency and up-to-date accuracy. An order processing system or a banking system would definitely not be a good place for your typical NoSQL database engine.
NOSQL is not about corrupted data. It is about viewing at your data from a different perspective. It provides some interesting leverage points, which enable for much easier scalability story, and often usability too. However, you have to look at your data differently, and program your application accordingly (eg, embrace consequences of BASE instead of ACID). Most NOSQL solutions prevent you from making decisions which could make your database hard to scale.
NOSQL is not for everything, but ACID is not the most important factor from end-user perspective. It is just us developers who cannot imagine world without ACID guarantees.
You are reading that correctly. If you have the AP of CAP, your data will be inconsistent. The more users, the more inconsistent. As having many users is the main reason why you scale, don't expect the inconsistencies to be rare. You've already seen data pop in and out of Facebook. Imagine what that would do to Amazon.com stock inventory figures if you left out ACID. Eventual consistency is merely a nice way to say that you don't have consistency but you should write and application where you don't need it. Some types of games and social network application does not need consistency. There are even line-of-business systems that don't need it, but those are quite rare. When your client calls when the wrong amount of money is on an account or when an angry poker player didn't get his winnings, the answer should not be that this is how your software was designed.
The right tool for the right job. If you have less than a few million transactions per second, you should use a consistent NewSQL or NoSQL database such as VoltDb (non concurrent Java applications) or Starcounter (concurrent .NET applications). There is just no need to give up ACID these days.