alt Hacker NewsNo. If you're going to use serialisable you might as well just use something like Redis (which achieves serialisable behaviour by the much simpler approach of... actually executing your operations serially, and generally outperforms a traditional RDBMS set to serialisable transaction isolation). If you're going to use the horrendously complex machinery of a traditional RDBMS, it should be because you need a level of performance not achievable under serialisable isolation level.
Redis doesn’t support rollbacks so on a conflict, you’re left in a potentially inconsistent state, which is precisely what serialized transactions are supposed to prevent. Additionally, you’re very limited in the kind of logic you can express within a transaction safely unlike SQL where you can make decisions based on past reads remain correct or unapplied whereas redis can do nothing here - once you’ve scheduled a transaction it’ll complete all the operations you enqueued even if a racing operation altered the underlying data that drove the decision.
Pretending like redis is suitable for an RDMS workload because it executes things serially means you’re completely ignoring what transactions are actually used for and how they work.