One of our readers was kind enough to walk me through his analytic DBMS evaluation process. The story is:
- The X Company (XCo) has a <1 TB database.
- 100s of XCo’s customers log in at once to run reports. 50-200 concurrent queries is a good target number.
- XCo had been “suffering” with Oracle and wanted to upgrade.
- XCo didn’t have a lot of money to spend. Netezza pulled out of the sales cycle early due to budget (and this was recently enough that Netezza Skimmer could have been bid).
- Greenplum didn’t offer any references that approached the desired number of concurrent users.
- Ultimately the evaluation came down to Vertica and ParAccel.
- Vertica won.
Notes on the Vertica vs. ParAccel selection include:
- ParAccel sent an engineer on-site to do a proof-of-concept (POC), and generally competed very hard for the deal.
- Vertica dropped by for a sales call once, and let XCo do the Vertica POC itself.
- Not surprisingly, XCo got the impression that Vertica was easier to set up and administer than ParAccel.
- Also, when ParAccel emphasized architectural features such as custom “backplane” and compiled queries, XCo got the impression – right or wrong – that ParAccel’s performance was more brittle or situational than Vertica’s.
- ParAccel was modestly faster than Vertica in the POC. (I think — Vertica’s numbers were described as being “very competitive.”)
- In multiple ways, Vertica gave the impression of greater product and vendor maturity than ParAccel.
My contact continues to be interested in all things Greenplum, and has recommended Greenplum Single-Node Edition to his analyst colleagues.