Comments on: Who is doing what in XML data management these days? http://www.dbms2.com/2008/06/28/xml-database-management/ Choices in data management and analysis Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:22:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3 By: Rob Tweed http://www.dbms2.com/2008/06/28/xml-database-management/#comment-95933 Rob Tweed Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:42:46 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/?p=443#comment-95933 In addition to Cache's built-in XML support, you may want to note our add-on product eXtc which implements the W3C XML DOM directly onto its underlying database, effectively turning Cache (or the Open Source GT.M) into a Native XML Database. See http://www.mgateway.com/extc.htm and http://www.rpbourret.com/xml/ProdsNative.htm#extc The XML DOM turns out to be tailor-made to be implemented on top of a schemaless, hierarchical database. In addition to Cache’s built-in XML support, you may want to note our add-on product eXtc which implements the W3C XML DOM directly onto its underlying database, effectively turning Cache (or the Open Source GT.M) into a Native XML Database. See http://www.mgateway.com/extc.htm and http://www.rpbourret.com/xml/ProdsNative.htm#extc

The XML DOM turns out to be tailor-made to be implemented on top of a schemaless, hierarchical database.

]]> By: LinkedIn name search is ridiculously bad | Text Technologies http://www.dbms2.com/2008/06/28/xml-database-management/#comment-94715 LinkedIn name search is ridiculously bad | Text Technologies Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:36:46 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/?p=443#comment-94715 [...] named Conor O’Mahony has posted excellent comments about XML databases on a couple of DBMS2 threads. After a look at the blog URL he provided and the job description he posted there, I resolved to [...] [...] named Conor O’Mahony has posted excellent comments about XML databases on a couple of DBMS2 threads. After a look at the blog URL he provided and the job description he posted there, I resolved to [...]

]]> By: Conor O'Mahony http://www.dbms2.com/2008/06/28/xml-database-management/#comment-94573 Conor O'Mahony Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:42:47 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/?p=443#comment-94573 DBMS performance is a complex beast. Without rigorous analysis, it is impossible to know ahead of time exactly how a DBMS will perform in your particular environment. An interesting approach is to: 1) Narrow the list of vendors you want to evaluate. 2) Download the free versions of those vendor's DBMS and evaluate for yourself. There is nothing like a hands-on evaluation to determine performance, power, ease-of-use, and maintainability. and 3) Make the vendors come in at this stage to help you optimize your prototype systems. This way you can rest assured of the DBMS meeting your needs, get a feel for the system before purchase, get some valuable optimization lessons from the experts, and you will likely be ideally set up to get a quick start on deployment. DBMS performance is a complex beast. Without rigorous analysis, it is impossible to know ahead of time exactly how a DBMS will perform in your particular environment. An interesting approach is to:

1) Narrow the list of vendors you want to evaluate.

2) Download the free versions of those vendor’s DBMS and evaluate for yourself. There is nothing like a hands-on evaluation to determine performance, power, ease-of-use, and maintainability.

and

3) Make the vendors come in at this stage to help you optimize your prototype systems.

This way you can rest assured of the DBMS meeting your needs, get a feel for the system before purchase, get some valuable optimization lessons from the experts, and you will likely be ideally set up to get a quick start on deployment.

]]> By: Travis Spencer http://www.dbms2.com/2008/06/28/xml-database-management/#comment-90827 Travis Spencer Thu, 17 Jul 2008 07:31:13 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/?p=443#comment-90827 When we talked w/ MarkLogic a few weeks back, they told us that they hadn't performed any of the quasi "standard" XML database benchmarks (e.g., XMach-1). They told us that the reason was because these benchmarks are not indicative of the scenarios their customers are confronting. I tend to agree w/ them and, based on my research, feel that the "standard" benchmarks are not a sufficient tool by which one can compare two XML database products to determine which is better suited to solve one's needs. The alternative approach which MarkLogic suggested to us, and that I also agree with, is to create a custom benchmark that aptly measure one's own scenario. Based on the results of this measure, one is then able to make a much more informed decision about which database product best suites their needs. When we talked w/ MarkLogic a few weeks back, they told us that they hadn’t performed any of the quasi “standard” XML database benchmarks (e.g., XMach-1). They told us that the reason was because these benchmarks are not indicative of the scenarios their customers are confronting.

I tend to agree w/ them and, based on my research, feel that the “standard” benchmarks are not a sufficient tool by which one can compare two XML database products to determine which is better suited to solve one’s needs.

The alternative approach which MarkLogic suggested to us, and that I also agree with, is to create a custom benchmark that aptly measure one’s own scenario. Based on the results of this measure, one is then able to make a much more informed decision about which database product best suites their needs.

]]> By: Serge Rielau http://www.dbms2.com/2008/06/28/xml-database-management/#comment-89255 Serge Rielau Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:41:05 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/?p=443#comment-89255 NY State Tax office seems to be doing fine and they made it through this season... http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/wikis/download/attachments/3204/NYS_Tax_DB2_pureXML.pdf I admit I have never looked at Cache' and I didn't even know of Mark Logic. Have either run any public benchmarks (such as TPOX) so I can take this claim as more than hear-say? When we compare we typically do so against Oracle an MS SQL Server and sure don't have to hide. DB2 9.5 btw. is about 2x above DB2 9 w.r.t. pureQML performance. It would be interesting to know the usage scenarios you encounter. Perhaps the products simply play in different fields (exclusive XML vs. XML + relational, R/W ratios, concurrent usage, transactional semantics (?))...? Cheers Serge NY State Tax office seems to be doing fine and they made it through this season…
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/wikis/download/attachments/3204/NYS_Tax_DB2_pureXML.pdf

I admit I have never looked at Cache’ and I didn’t even know of Mark Logic.
Have either run any public benchmarks (such as TPOX) so I can take this claim as more than hear-say?
When we compare we typically do so against Oracle an MS SQL Server and sure don’t have to hide.
DB2 9.5 btw. is about 2x above DB2 9 w.r.t. pureQML performance.

It would be interesting to know the usage scenarios you encounter. Perhaps the products simply play in different fields (exclusive XML vs. XML + relational, R/W ratios, concurrent usage, transactional semantics (?))…?

Cheers
Serge

]]> By: Curt Monash http://www.dbms2.com/2008/06/28/xml-database-management/#comment-89235 Curt Monash Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:52:49 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/?p=443#comment-89235 I heard "an order of magnitude" for the performance difference from prospects who evaluated Viper vs. Marklogic, and they were surely using the phrase correctly. Cache' was competitive; Viper wasn't. That was for a somewhat unusual application (tracking paths through a tree), but I've heard similar things elsewhere, and haven't heard anybody speak favorably of IBM's XML performance except IBM itself. CAM I heard “an order of magnitude” for the performance difference from prospects who evaluated Viper vs. Marklogic, and they were surely using the phrase correctly. Cache’ was competitive; Viper wasn’t.

That was for a somewhat unusual application (tracking paths through a tree), but I’ve heard similar things elsewhere, and haven’t heard anybody speak favorably of IBM’s XML performance except IBM itself.

CAM

]]> By: Serge Rielau http://www.dbms2.com/2008/06/28/xml-database-management/#comment-89230 Serge Rielau Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:33:23 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/?p=443#comment-89230 >IBM has a very nice architecture, with a separate >optimized XML engine integrated into DB2. However, >performance is for some reason ghastly. Curt, Care to elaborate? "Ghastly" is certainly not an attribute we tend to attach to our XML performance. So I am curious as to where you got that impression from. Cheers Serge Rielau DB2 Benchmark & Solution Development IBM Toronto Lab >IBM has a very nice architecture, with a separate >optimized XML engine integrated into DB2. However, >performance is for some reason ghastly.
Curt,

Care to elaborate? “Ghastly” is certainly not an attribute we tend to attach to our XML performance.
So I am curious as to where you got that impression from.

Cheers
Serge Rielau
DB2 Benchmark & Solution Development
IBM Toronto Lab

]]>