September 30th, 2007 Curt Monash
Calpont’s website is finally more or less real. It still doesn’t say much except that the company is in alpha test with a Type II appliance, and that the product has a columnar DBMS architecture and Oracle transparency (with DB2) promised. Oh yes; it has 32 employees. The “Customer” tab doesn’t list any customers, but I guess they saved site design money by having it all ready to go when that situation changes.
Philip Howard’s recent article has a lot more meat than that, including the perplexing bit of info that Calpont is starting out with a shared-everything architecture. Based on that, as well as the company’s prior technical efforts, we can probably conclude they’re focused on rather small warehouses.
Keep getting great research about database management and analytic technology theory and practice. Get a FREE subscription by RSS/Atom or e-mail!
Posted in Analytics and analytic technologies, Calpont, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Portability, transparency, and plug-compatibility, Relational database management systems | No Comments »
September 28th, 2007 Curt Monash
Actually, I’m kidding with the post title; I doubt that Oracle’s new deal with DATAllegro partners Dell and EMC has much to do with DATAllegro at all. Rather, I think it’s an example of a trend I’m also sensing* from other major hardware vendors — doing deals with multiple data warehouse software suppliers to cover different hardware size ranges. This just happens to be the first one to be announced.
*How’s that for a nice, vague euphemism?
DATAllegro is targeted at warehouses sized, at a minimum, in the tens of terabytes of user data. Oracle’s technology works well enough up into at least the multi-terabyte range — unless you’re looking to get the best possible price and/or performance on your system — but then things start getting dicey. So there isn’t a lot of overlap between the two Dell/EMC offerings. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Analytics and analytic technologies, DATAllegro, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Oracle, Relational database management systems | 1 Comment »
September 27th, 2007 Curt Monash
I’ve pointed out in the past that solid-state/Flash memory could be a good alternative to hard disks in PCs and enterprise systems alike. Well, when that happy day arrives, what will be some of the implications for database management software architecture?
- Compression will be even more important. Cost per terabyte of storage will spike up for that storage that is moved from disk to solid-state.
- The sequential-rather-than-random reading strategy of data warehouse appliance makers may become less relevant. The one way to get rid of the disk-speed bottleneck is to get rid of disks.
- DBMS will need to write data as rarely as possible. Solid-state memory tends to wear out if you keep writing over it. Assuming this problem gets better over time (if it doesn’t, this whole discussion is moot) but isn’t totally solved, architectures which have fewer writes are on the whole better.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Database compression, Database theory and practice, Netezza, Specialized data management in general | No Comments »
September 27th, 2007 Curt Monash
Apparently, one user isn’t happy with QlikView at all. The main problem seems to be, in effect, frequently-repeated bulk loads from disk into the in-memory structures. (Obviously — at least absent more information — that could be an artifact of a stupidly ignorant installation, rather than a fundamental problem with the technology itself.) He’s also not at all enamored of QlikView’s app dev tools.
Technorati Tags: QlikView, QlikTech, in-memory, business intelligence
Posted in Analytics and analytic technologies, Business intelligence, Memory-centric data management, QlikTech and QlikView | 2 Comments »
September 27th, 2007 Curt Monash
I just found a blog post asking about Netezza that elicited quite a few responses, including at least four that purported to be from people whose companies had selected Netezza in a POC (Proof Of Concept) bake-off. One says Netezza was super-fast, even over DATAllegro, and DATAllegro’s professional services were lacking. One says Netezza is 50X faster than traditional alternatives on some queries, but up to 2X slower on some others. Two others just expressed love (or at least commitment) without giving details.
I haven’t yet looked through the rest of the responses in the thread.
Keep getting great research about database management systems, business intelligence, and related technologies. Get a FREE subscription by RSS/Atom or e-mail!
Technorati Tags: Netezza, data warehousing, data warehouse appliance, proof of concept
Posted in Analytics and analytic technologies, DATAllegro, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Netezza | 3 Comments »
September 27th, 2007 Curt Monash
Netezza has officially announced the Netezza Developer Network. Associated with that is a set of technical capabilities, which basically boil down to programming user-defined functions or other capabilities straight onto the Netezza nodes (aka SPUs). And this is specifically onto the FPGAs, not the PowerPC processors. In C. Technically, I think what this boils down to is:
- Extending Netezza’s SQL via user-defined functions (which probably wasn’t too hard, especially since the Netezza engine is related to PostgreSQL).
- Providing a C-to-Verilog compiler.
- Providing an application development environment and associated tools. (Presumably rather primitive, but I haven’t really checked it out.)
The applications mentioned in the NDN press release, and I quote directly, are:
- Multi-dimensional geospatial analytics on comprehensive data sets for risk management
- Predictive model scoring for customer segmentation, enabling real-time offer provisioning for customers
- Iterative modeling and analytics on billions of call detail records (CDRs) for telco price optimization
- Real-time Monte Carlo simulations on terabytes of detail-level data for risk management
- “Fingerprinting” with hashing algorithms for chain-of-custody document fingerprinting and to ensure that files transferred are intact
- Fuzzy text search analysis uses algorithms that provide a “best guess” of most likely results
Netezza says that the greatest interest has come from usual-suspect sophisticated users, specifically intelligence agencies and perhaps also financial services firms. But naturally, the partners actually trotted out at Netezza’s user conference were mainly hopeful small-company ISVs. The biggest stir was made by not-so-small SAS, which evidently believes this new capability will provide massive improvements to SAS/Netezza combined performance.
In principle, there are four different ways this new programmability could be a big win: Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Native XML, Netezza, PostgreSQL, Relational database management systems, SAS Institute, Specialized data management in general | 8 Comments »
September 26th, 2007 Curt Monash
EDIT: Big whoops, and apologies to Philip. I didn’t check the date, and what I linked to was last year’s article. That said, it read as if it could have been this year’s, which tells us something about the pace of Netezza’s information disclosure. Resulting errors of mine are left in place.
Netezza perennially annoys me by the secrecy with which it surrounds its information disclosure, especially at the annual user conference (just concluded). Essentially, except for what has also been separately disclosed, the whole thing is under NDA beyond the generality “We told you that we intend to improve our product by making more use of the FPGA.” Blech. That said, Philip Howard* has a long and — no surprise there! — upbeat article. So I’ll link to that, saving me some worries about what I myself am or am not allowed to say. E.g., I wouldn’t dare suggest — as Philip does — that Netezza’s zone maps (essentially, one-dimensional partitioning) could be enhanced going forward. And while I think Netezza has made strong efforts to tell the marketing stories Philip describes as being “hidden under a bushel,” I agree that — largely because of its self-defeating mania for secrecy — Netezza hasn’t done nearly as good a job of getting those messages accepted as it could have.
*Just to be clear — notwithstanding how much I tweak him for his exuberance, Philip seems to be a great guy, both in his publications and in person.
In general, much of what Philip wrote I would agree with. That said, let me hasten to point out some exceptions, including: Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in DATAllegro, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Netezza, Relational database management systems | 2 Comments »
September 25th, 2007 Curt Monash
I’ve written extensively in the past about the differences between Oracle and SAP’s technical paradigms. (In a nutshell, Oracle is first and foremost about data, while SAP is about business process.) Last week, the respective companies’ CEOs outlined very different business strategies as well. Specifically, SAP’s Henning Kagermann called SAP’s new ByDemand SaaS offering “most important announcement I’ve made in my career,” while Oracle’s Larry Ellison outlined a continued high-end strategy as follows (excerpted from Oracle’s September 20 conference call transcript):
Our strategy for growth is to find a way to add more value to the same customers we already serve, which are the large end of the mid-market and large companies. What we’re doing here is moving beyond ERP to industry specific software. So in the telecommunications industry that would be billing systems and network provisioning systems and network inventory systems; core applications to run their business, to run telco. Core applications to run a bank. Core applications to run a retail chain of stores. Core applications to run a utility. That’s our focus, and that allows us to leverage the existing relationships that we have because we already sell databases to these companies, we sell middleware to these companies. We sell ERP and CRM to these companies, and now we want to sell this industry-specific software.
Now, when a CEO says that something is a company’s “most important announcement ever,” it’s time to check your hyperbole meter. (E.g., I recall Larry saying that about, of all things, a release of Oracle’s application development tools.) Still, there are at least three strong reasons to take last week’s statements more or less seriously: Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Oracle, SAP, BI Accelerator, and MaxDB | 1 Comment »
September 24th, 2007 Curt Monash
On Oracle’s quarterly conference call September 20, Larry Ellison said:
There are some interesting niche players. Sybase gets smaller every year. Teradata, a database machine and now there’s some new database machine players, Neteeza, and let me say that Oracle is a very innovative company and I think you’ll see us with a response to some of these niche players some time at the end of this year or next year.
How important this is depends hugely, of course, on just what form Oracle’s response takes.
Oracle already does a great job of accelerating complex queries within the severe limitations of its SMP/shared-everything architecture. If it just does more of the same, perhaps adding in some hardware optimizations and vendor relationships, it will be a big ho-hum. At best, such moves will improve Oracle’s price/performance somewhat and garner some favorable publicity, and postpone the serious bleeding for a while as Oracle tries to find a better way of dealing with the specialist threat.
Much more significant would be a new engine, whether developed inhouse or acquired. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Oracle, Relational database management systems | No Comments »
September 24th, 2007 Curt Monash
I’ve been slow to notice a very useful service being provided by Seeking Alpha, namely transcripts of quarterly earnings conference calls. For example, the Netezza call on August 23 revealed that Netezza sells approximately as many systems per year as it has quota-carrying sales teams. Or maybe it’s closer to 2 sales per team, especially for the more experienced ones. More precisely, the numbers discussed were 6-15 sales per quarter, and 35 sales teams. Average deal size was $2.3 million; based on the earnings press release, that suggests 10-11 deals depending on how much service revenue (if any) was included.
And by the way, if Netezza does 6-15 sales per quarter, and has a much smaller average sale than DATAllegro, and has much more revenue than DATAllegro — well, it’s easy to understand why DATAllegro isn’t exhibiting a very long list of customers.
Keep getting great research about data warehouse appliances and related technologies. Get a FREE subscription by RSS/Atom or e-mail!
Posted in DATAllegro, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Netezza | 1 Comment »
September 24th, 2007 Curt Monash
Pervasive Software has a long history – 25 years, in fact, as they’re emphasizing in some current marketing. Ownership and company name have changed a few times, as the company went from being an independent startup to being owned by Novell to being independent again. The original product, and still the cash cow, was a linked-list DBMS called Btrieve, eventually renamed Pervasive PSQL as it gained more and more relational functionality.
Pervasive Summit PSQL v10 has just been rolled out, and I wrote a nice little white paper to commemorate the event, describing some of the main advances over v9, primarily for the benefit of current Pervasive PSQL developers. In one major advance, Pervasive made the SQL functionality much stronger. In particular, you now can have a regular SQL data dictionary, so that the database can be used for other purposes – BI, additional apps, whatever. Apparently, that wasn’t possible before, although it had been possible in yet earlier releases. Pervasive also added view-based security permissions, which is obviously a Very Good Thing.
There also are some big performance boosts. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Database compression, Hierarchies, networks, graphs, and trees, Memory-centric data management, Microsoft and SQL*Server, Mid-range DBMS, OLTP database management, Pervasive Software, Portability, transparency, and plug-compatibility, Relational database management systems | No Comments »
September 19th, 2007 Curt Monash
I was chatting with Stuart Frost this evening (DATAllegro’s CEO). As usual, I grilled him about customer counts; as usual, he was evasive, but expressed general ebullience about the pace of business; also as usual, he was charming and helpful on other subjects.
In particular, we talked about the Vertica story, and he offered some interesting pushback. Part was blindingly obvious — Vertica’s not in the marketplace yet, when they are the product won’t be mature, and so on. Part was the also obvious “we can do most of that ourselves” line of argument, some of which I’ve summarized in a comment here. But he made two other interesting points as well. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Columnar architectures, DATAllegro, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Database theory and practice, Relational database management systems, Vertica Systems | 1 Comment »
September 18th, 2007 Curt Monash
Back in March, I suggested that compression was a central and compelling aspect of Vertica’s story. Well, in their new blog, the Vertica guys now strongly reinforce that impression.
I recommend those two Database Column posts (by Sam Madden) highly. I’ve rarely seen such a clear, detailed presentation of a company’s technical argument. My own thoughts on the subject boil down to:
- In principle, all the technology (and hence all the technological advantages) they’re talking about could be turned into features of one of the indexing options of a row-oriented RDBMS. But in practice, there’s no indication that this will happen any time soon.
-
Release 1 of the Vertica product will surely have many rough edges.
- Some startups are surprisingly ignorant of the issue involved in building a successful, industrial-strength DBMS. But a company that has both Mike Stonebraker and Jerry Held seriously involved has a big advantage. They may make other kinds of errors, but they won’t make many ignorant ones.
Technorati Tags: Vertica, database compression, columnar
Posted in Columnar architectures, Data warehousing, Database compression, Database theory and practice, Michael Stonebraker, Relational database management systems, Vertica Systems | 4 Comments »
September 6th, 2007 Curt Monash
In the first “meat” — i.e., other than housekeeping — post on the new Database Column blog, Mike Stonebraker makes three core claims:
1. Different DBMS should be used for different purposes. I am in violent agreement with that point, which is indeed a major theme of this blog.
2. Vertica’s software is 50X faster than anything non-columnar and 10X faster than anything columnar. Now, some of these stats surely come from the syndrome of comparing the future release of your product, as tuned by world’s greatest experts on it who also hope to get rich on their stock options in your company, vs. some well-established production release of your competitors’ products, tuned to an unknown level of excellence,* with the whole thing running test queries that you, in your impartial wisdom, deem representative of user needs. Or something like that … Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Columnar architectures, Data warehousing, Database diversity, Database theory and practice, Michael Stonebraker, OLTP database management, Relational database management systems, Specialized data management in general, TransRelational | 2 Comments »
September 6th, 2007 Curt Monash
I’ve written a considerable amount about Vertica and/or the opinions of Mike Stonebraker. Now the Vertica guys have their own blog, which they pledge will not just be a rehash of Vertica marketing pitches — notwithstanding the Vertica-related wordplay in the blog’s name.*
*Those guys are good at wordplay.
Posted in Columnar architectures, Humor, Vertica Systems | No Comments »
September 6th, 2007 Curt Monash
If I weren’t on a snorkeling vacation,* this might be a good time to write about why I once called Cognos “The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight,” how Ron Zambonini used that label to help him gain the company’s top spot, why he’s such a big fan of mine, why I got my highest ever per-minute speaking fee to attend a Cognos sales kickoff event, why I went for a midnight touristing stroll in downtown Ottawa in zero degree Fahrenheit weather, or how I managed, while attending the aforementioned Cognos sales kickoff, to get snowed in for three days in, of all places, Dallas, Texas. But the wrasses and jacks await, so I’ll get straight to the point.
*Albeit fairly snorkel-free so far, thanks to Hurricane Felix. 
As I discussed at considerable length in a white paper, Applix’s core technology is fully-featured, memory-centric MOLAP. This is certainly cool technology, and I think it is actually unique. That it’s historically been positioned as the engine for a mid-range set of performance management tools is a travesty, a shame, the result of a prior merger – and also the quite understandable consequence of RAM limitations. However, RAM is ever cheaper and Applix’s technology is now 64-bit, so the RAM barriers have been relaxed. Cognos can take Applix’s TM1 engine high-end if it wants to. And boy, should Cognos ever want to. Indeed, there are three different great ways Cognos could package and position TM1:
- As a no-data-warehouse-design quick-start analytics engine analogous to QlikView (the fastest-growing and most important newish BI suite, open source perhaps excepted);
- As the most sophisticated and versatile planning tool this side of SAP’s APO (and while APO’s sophistication is not in dispute, its versatility is questionable anyway);
-
As the processing hub for dashboards-done-right.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Analytics and analytic technologies, Business intelligence, Cognos and Applix TM1, MOLAP, Memory-centric data management | 4 Comments »