A couple of years ago I was talking to a couple of friends of mine who were doing some work at eBay. It's always interesting to hear about the techniques people use on high volume sites, but perhaps one of the most interesting tidbits was that eBay mostly hardly ever uses database transactions.
For most people, coming into a transactionless environment is quite a shock. Using transactions is a very accepted part of working with databases. A lot of people, including myself, see transactions as one of the key benefits that databases give you.
The rationale for not using transactions was that they harm performance at the sort of scale that eBay deals with. This effect is exacerbated by the fact that eBay heavily partitions its data into many, many physical databases. As a result using transactions would mean using distributed transactions, which is a common thing to be wary of.
This heavy partitioning, and the database's central role in performance issues, means that eBay doesn't use many other database facilities. Referential integrity and sorting are done in application code. There's hardly any triggers or stored procedures.
My immediate follow-up to the news of transactionless was to ask what the consequences were for the application programmer, in particular the overall feeling about transactionlessness. The reply was that it was odd at first, but ended up not being a big deal - much less of a problem than you might think. You have to pay attention to the order of your commits, getting the more important ones in first. At each commit you have to check that it succeeded and decide what to do if it fails.
This style of programming intrigued me, but since I was told about it quietly, I wouldn't talk about it more widely. I can now because Dan Pritchett gave a fascinating talk at QCon this week about eBay's architecture, including this aspect. (He also talked about this in an interview and there's a useful pdf info-deck .)
I'd like to see more about the details of programming without transactions in this kind of manner. Apart from the fact that it's always worth thinking about alternatives, it's also the case that transactionlessness is more common than many people think. It's common to have multi-step business processes with multiple resources that either would need long-running distributed transactions, or resources that have no support for transactions.
We shouldn't read too much into this. Nobody is arguing that we should tear transactions out of our toolkit. I don't know enough details about eBay to judge whether avoiding transactions is the right approach even for them. But eBay's example suggests that living without transactions is far less impossible than many people think.