<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Teradata vs. the new appliance vendors, technically</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.dbms2.com/2006/09/20/teradata-netezza-datallegro-appliance/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.dbms2.com/2006/09/20/teradata-netezza-datallegro-appliance/</link>
	<description>Choices in data management and analysis</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:48:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mael</title>
		<link>http://www.dbms2.com/2006/09/20/teradata-netezza-datallegro-appliance/#comment-44359</link>
		<dc:creator>Mael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2007 01:50:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dbms2.com/2006/09/20/teradata-netezza-datallegro-appliance/#comment-44359</guid>
		<description>A database appliance compared to Teradata is like comparing a bottle rocket to a rocketship or a toaster oven to a full fledge stove. One certainly can cook all their meals quickly in a toaster oven but who would want to let alone try to cater to an audience of thousands. Teradata is a full fledge RDBMS and has been since it was designed to be a shared nothing parallel linearly scalable database. No other solution is even comparable where mixed workloads and simultaneous complex queries are concerned. I think appliances have a niche market however I think they shouldn&#039;t call themselves data warehouse appliances because what they really are are data mart appliances. 

Teradata on the otherhand is a node based system that scales and gets faster as it scales and the whole organization benefits. The complexity or lack there of ones queries or indexes is entirely up to those implementing it unlike most appliances which excel the more specialized they become. As for Join indexes not being referenced by SQL it is because they don&#039;t have to be, they are utilized transparently.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A database appliance compared to Teradata is like comparing a bottle rocket to a rocketship or a toaster oven to a full fledge stove. One certainly can cook all their meals quickly in a toaster oven but who would want to let alone try to cater to an audience of thousands. Teradata is a full fledge RDBMS and has been since it was designed to be a shared nothing parallel linearly scalable database. No other solution is even comparable where mixed workloads and simultaneous complex queries are concerned. I think appliances have a niche market however I think they shouldn&#8217;t call themselves data warehouse appliances because what they really are are data mart appliances. </p>
<p>Teradata on the otherhand is a node based system that scales and gets faster as it scales and the whole organization benefits. The complexity or lack there of ones queries or indexes is entirely up to those implementing it unlike most appliances which excel the more specialized they become. As for Join indexes not being referenced by SQL it is because they don&#8217;t have to be, they are utilized transparently.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DBMS2 &#8212; DataBase Management System Services&#187;Blog Archive &#187; Arguments AGAINST data warehouse appliances</title>
		<link>http://www.dbms2.com/2006/09/20/teradata-netezza-datallegro-appliance/#comment-16403</link>
		<dc:creator>DBMS2 &#8212; DataBase Management System Services&#187;Blog Archive &#187; Arguments AGAINST data warehouse appliances</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2007 09:51:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dbms2.com/2006/09/20/teradata-netezza-datallegro-appliance/#comment-16403</guid>
		<description>[...] But the true story is more mixed. Teradata continues to this day as a major data warehouse technology player, and as far as I’m concerned Teradata indeed makes appliances. If we look further than the applications stack, we find that appliances actually occupy a large and growing share of the computing market. So a persuasive anti-appliance argument has to do more than just invoke the names of Britton-Lee and Symbolics. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] But the true story is more mixed. Teradata continues to this day as a major data warehouse technology player, and as far as I’m concerned Teradata indeed makes appliances. If we look further than the applications stack, we find that appliances actually occupy a large and growing share of the computing market. So a persuasive anti-appliance argument has to do more than just invoke the names of Britton-Lee and Symbolics. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DBMS2 &#8212; DataBase Management System Services&#187;Blog Archive &#187; Competitive issues in data warehouse ease of administration</title>
		<link>http://www.dbms2.com/2006/09/20/teradata-netezza-datallegro-appliance/#comment-7165</link>
		<dc:creator>DBMS2 &#8212; DataBase Management System Services&#187;Blog Archive &#187; Competitive issues in data warehouse ease of administration</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Sep 2006 07:47:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dbms2.com/2006/09/20/teradata-netezza-datallegro-appliance/#comment-7165</guid>
		<description>[...] Teradata also has preconfigured hardware. It does have indices, but rather simple ones. Plus it has join indices. And it has a few more configuration options in other areas (e.g., block size) than the other appliance vendors. (Yes, I count Teradata among the appliances.) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Teradata also has preconfigured hardware. It does have indices, but rather simple ones. Plus it has join indices. And it has a few more configuration options in other areas (e.g., block size) than the other appliance vendors. (Yes, I count Teradata among the appliances.) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stuart Frost</title>
		<link>http://www.dbms2.com/2006/09/20/teradata-netezza-datallegro-appliance/#comment-6772</link>
		<dc:creator>Stuart Frost</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Sep 2006 03:59:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dbms2.com/2006/09/20/teradata-netezza-datallegro-appliance/#comment-6772</guid>
		<description>Wow, so the mighty Teradata has finally admitted that we exist. I&#039;m truly honored.

I think it&#039;s kind of amusing that all of a sudden Teradata is claiming to do everything we do - shame they can&#039;t match us on price or performance.

OK, that&#039;s slightly facetious, since there are some areas in large-scale &#039;Active Warehousing&#039; where they still have a lead. However, there are a lot of data warehousing projects for which we simply have the better, easier to use product at a far lower price.

Stuart
DATAllegro</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow, so the mighty Teradata has finally admitted that we exist. I&#8217;m truly honored.</p>
<p>I think it&#8217;s kind of amusing that all of a sudden Teradata is claiming to do everything we do &#8211; shame they can&#8217;t match us on price or performance.</p>
<p>OK, that&#8217;s slightly facetious, since there are some areas in large-scale &#8216;Active Warehousing&#8217; where they still have a lead. However, there are a lot of data warehousing projects for which we simply have the better, easier to use product at a far lower price.</p>
<p>Stuart<br />
DATAllegro</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

