# Sequence Number Ordering

Although causality is an important theoretical concept, actually keeping track of all causal dependencies can become impractical. In many applications, clients read lots of data before writing something, and then it is not clear whether the write is causally dependent on all or only some of those prior reads. Explicitly tracking all the data that has been read would mean a large overhead.

However, there is a better way: we can use sequence numbers or timestamps to order events. A timestamp need not come from a time-of-day clock (or physical clock, which have many problems, as discussed in “Unreliable Clocks” on page 287). It can instead come from a logical clock, which is an algorithm to generate a sequence of numbers to identify operations, typically using counters that are incremented for every operation.

Such sequence numbers or timestamps are compact (only a few bytes in size), and they provide a total order: that is, every operation has a unique sequence number, and you can always compare two sequence numbers to determine which is greater (i.e., which operation happened later).

In particular, we can create sequence numbers in a total order that is consistent with causality:[1] we promise that if operation A causally happened before B, then A occurs before B in the total order (A has a lower sequence number than B). Concurrent operations may be ordered arbitrarily. Such a total order captures all the causality information, but also imposes more ordering than strictly required by causality.

In a database with single-leader replication (see “Leaders and Followers” on page 152), the replication log defines a total order of write operations that is consistent with causality. The leader can simply increment a counter for each operation, and thus assign a monotonically increasing sequence number to each operation in the replication log. If a follower applies the writes in the order they appear in the replication log, the state of the follower is always causally consistent (even if it is lagging behind the leader).

• [1] A total order that is inconsistent with causality is easy to create, but not very useful. For example, you cangenerate a random UUID for each operation, and compare UUIDs lexicographically to define the total ordering of operations. This is a valid total order, but the random UUIDs tell you nothing about which operationactually happened first, or whether the operations were concurrent.