Misconceptions About the CAP Theorem — Even Among Experienced Engineers

The CAP theorem remains one of the most discussed yet misunderstood principles in distributed systems. Over the years, I’ve encountered several recurring misconceptions — even among experienced engineers — that distort how we think about data consistency and system design.

In this post, I’ll break down what CAP really means, clear up the misconceptions, and explain why understanding these trade-offs is essential for designing robust, scalable systems.

---

Common Misconceptions About the CAP Theorem

Let’s start with the big ones:

1. “CAP applies only to distributed systems with sharding.”
   False. CAP applies to any distributed data system, whether your data is distributed by sharding or replication.

2. “CAP is a NoSQL thing.”
   False again. CAP has nothing to do with database type — it’s about distributed data. Whether you’re using PostgreSQL, MySQL, MongoDB, or Cassandra, if your data lives in multiple places, you’re living in the world of CAP.

3. “Organizations must choose between consistency and availability.”
   This is a major misconception. You don’t pick one for your entire system and live with it forever.
   You choose based on context — some parts of your system may need strict consistency, while others prioritize high availability.

Let’s unpack that further.

---

A Quick Refresher: Sharding vs. Replication

🔹 Sharding
This is when you split your data horizontally — so that each server holds a unique subset.
For example:

• DB Server A stores transactions A–M.

• DB Server B stores transactions N–Z.

This pattern helps scale massive systems like Facebook, Google, and Amazon, where a single database can’t possibly handle all the data.

🔹 Replication
This is when you duplicate your data across multiple servers — often across regions — to improve performance and fault tolerance.
If one replica fails, another can serve requests seamlessly.

Most large-scale systems actually use both sharding and replication — which means they experience CAP trade-offs at multiple levels.

---

What the CAP Theorem Actually Says

CAP stands for:

• C – Consistency: All nodes (or replicas) in the system see the same data at the same time. When a record is inserted, updated, or deleted, every replica must reflect that change and maintain a uniform state — or the operation should be rejected entirely.

• A – Availability: Every request receives a valid response, even in the presence of failures. This means that even if some replicas are temporarily unreachable, the system continues serving requests successfully and synchronizes data once the affected nodes recover.

• P – Partition Tolerance: The system continues to function correctly despite network partitions or communication breakdowns between nodes.

Because network partitions are inevitable in any distributed environment, a system must always trade off between Consistency (C) and Availability (A).
You can’t achieve both perfectly at the same time under a partition.

---

✈️ Example: The Flight Booking System

Let’s make it practical.

🪑 Seat Selection — When Consistency is more important than Availability

Imagine two users — one in Lagos and another in New York — both trying to book the same flight seat. If the network link between replicated databases fails, the replicas can no longer agree on who selected the seat first. To prevent both users from ending up with the same seat — and the chaos that would follow when they board — it’s better for the system to reject both requests until communication is restored across all replicas.

This ensures data correctness — even if it means being temporarily unavailable.

That’s strict consistency in action.

---

💬 Flight Reviews — When Availability is more important than Consistency

Now imagine the flight review service, where passengers leave feedback after their trip. If a replica in one region is temporarily down, the system can still accept the review locally and synchronize it later once connectivity is restored. It’s not critical for everyone to see the new review immediately — what matters is keeping the system responsive and able to accept feedback whenever a user chooses to submit one.

That’s eventual consistency — prioritizing availability over synchronization.

---

❗ You Don’t just “Choose Once” — You Choose Per Scenario

The biggest misunderstanding is the belief that companies must choose either consistency or availability once and for all.
I once heard someone say that “Facebook chose availability over consistency.”
Not exactly. The real question is — which part of Facebook’s service are you talking about?

In reality, you make that decision per use case.

That’s how real distributed systems work — context-driven trade-offs, not rigid principles.

---

Why CAP Applies to All Distributed Systems

It doesn’t matter whether you’re using:

• Relational Databases (RDBMS) with replication, or

• NoSQL systems like MongoDB, DynamoDB, or Cassandra.

Once your data exists in multiple locations and you want the system to tolerate network failures, the CAP theorem applies.

Even a replicated PostgreSQL cluster has to decide between synchronous replication (Consistency) and asynchronous replication (Availability).

---

🧠 In Summary

• CAP applies to any distributed system — sharded or replicated, SQL or NoSQL.

• Replication often makes the trade-offs more visible because data must stay synchronized.

• Even a sharded-only system faces availability choices when a shard goes down.

• You don’t “pick” consistency or availability for the whole system — you choose per business process.

CAP isn’t a NoSQL theory — it’s a universal truth of distributed data systems.

---

📢 Coming Next

In my next post, I’ll explore the different database families and their types — Relational, Document, Key-Value, Columnar, Graph, Time-Series, and others — and their best use cases.

I’ll also share why I chose a Relational Database for my Procurement Project — and how that decision aligns with the trade-offs we just discussed.

---

Thanks for reading!
If this helped clarify CAP for you, feel free to share or drop your thoughts in the comments — I’d love to hear your take on how you’ve balanced Consistency vs Availability in your own systems.

Stay connected:
Follow me for build updates, architecture deep dives, and CodeTrip November highlights.

• Stay connected:
  Follow me for build updates, architecture deep dives, and CodeTrip November highlights.

  • LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/olamideakinoso

  • X (Twitter): x.com/olamideakinoso

  • YouTube: youtube.com/@TechAndCodingWithOla-tg9vg

  • GitHub: github.com/a-olamide