<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: IBM and Teradata too</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.dbms2.com/2006/10/03/ibm-and-teradata-too/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.dbms2.com/2006/10/03/ibm-and-teradata-too/</link>
	<description>Choices in data management and analysis</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2008 04:12:20 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: DBMS2 &#8212; DataBase Management System Services&#187;Blog Archive &#187; Are row-oriented RDBMS obsolete?</title>
		<link>http://www.dbms2.com/2006/10/03/ibm-and-teradata-too/#comment-16348</link>
		<dc:creator>DBMS2 &#8212; DataBase Management System Services&#187;Blog Archive &#187; Are row-oriented RDBMS obsolete?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Jan 2007 11:25:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dbms2.com/2006/10/03/ibm-and-teradata-too/#comment-16348</guid>
		<description>[...] Obviously, my post title was exaggerated; nobody, including Mike, thinks row-oriented data stores are obsolete for OLTP. But what about data warehousing? Will an approach like Vertica’s eventually win versus, say, the shared-nothing row-oriented RDBMS leaders (that would be some combination of IBM, Teradata, Netezza, and DATAllegro, depending on what you mean by “leader”)? Well, apparently Vertica has a bunch of tests going on, at database sizes from the low 100s of gigabytes to the low 10s of terabytes. And of course they have those great-looking benchmark results, for which they swear they tuned competitor’s products with passionate care. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Obviously, my post title was exaggerated; nobody, including Mike, thinks row-oriented data stores are obsolete for OLTP. But what about data warehousing? Will an approach like Vertica’s eventually win versus, say, the shared-nothing row-oriented RDBMS leaders (that would be some combination of IBM, Teradata, Netezza, and DATAllegro, depending on what you mean by “leader”)? Well, apparently Vertica has a bunch of tests going on, at database sizes from the low 100s of gigabytes to the low 10s of terabytes. And of course they have those great-looking benchmark results, for which they swear they tuned competitor’s products with passionate care. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DBMS2 &#8212; DataBase Management System Services&#187;Blog Archive &#187; Vendor segmentation for data warehouse DBMS</title>
		<link>http://www.dbms2.com/2006/10/03/ibm-and-teradata-too/#comment-9331</link>
		<dc:creator>DBMS2 &#8212; DataBase Management System Services&#187;Blog Archive &#187; Vendor segmentation for data warehouse DBMS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Oct 2006 09:06:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dbms2.com/2006/10/03/ibm-and-teradata-too/#comment-9331</guid>
		<description>[...] Big full-spectrum MPP/shared-nothing vendors:  Teradata and IBM. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Big full-spectrum MPP/shared-nothing vendors:  Teradata and IBM. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
