I just don’t see Oracle abandoning HPC entirely. I think it may call it by some other name or describe it differently, but it will be in the high throughput computing business for the foreseeable future.

There are some interesting angles for it to pursue. Many of its best commercial customers have sizeable HPC or HPC-like workloads that Oracle can now (with the addition of Sun) compete for. I don’t see it passing up those opportunities.

Oracle can also look to specialize on certain subsets of the market and provide more of a solution rather than piece parts. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear of it offering an Exadata-like system that is optimized for, say, seismic or financial services. In fact, Exadata as it stands today is a decent fit for financial service analytic workloads.

HPC can be a profitable business and, in a lot of organizations, it’s growing faster than traditional business processing. From Oracle’s perspective, what’s not to like?

Now, except for the Exadata-in-financial-services comment, that’s not directly an argument for the convergence of number crunching and data management.  However, I think Netezza and Aster Data are showing the way for that convergence. So, up to a point, is the scientific-research community. And of course the Hadoop guys think they have the best way to that convergent future.

But if Dan Olds is right that the best technologies for Oracle to pursue HPC and big-data processing with aren’t all that far apart, then the chances that Oracle will indeed pursue their convergence are pretty high. And that would amount to critical mass for the trend.

*I probably have it worse than most people in that regard, because my clients run tentative feature lists and announcement schedules by me well in advance, which may get changed multiple times before the final dates roll around. I also occasionally miss some detail, if it wasn’t in a pre-briefing but gets added at the end.

Anyhow, the three big themes of this month’s announcements are probably:

• Integrating different kinds of analytic processing into databases and DBMS.
• Taking advantage of hardware advances.
• Playing catchup in areas where small vendors’ products weren’t mature yet.

For example, the three biggest data warehouse DBMS product announcements this month are probably:

• Aster Data nCluster 4.5. Much like Aster’s prior release — Aster Data nCluster 4.0 – Aster Data nCluster 4.5 has a major focus on integrating analytics and database processing. This time, the emphasis is on application development tools and pre-built analytic packages. In addition, Aster’s management tool GUIs have been upgraded, building on catch-up functionality in the Aster Data nCluster 4.0.
• Netezza’s “i” add-on to its existing TwinFin products. With Netezza TwinFin(i), Netezza becomes the second MPP RDBMS vendor with a comprehensive “Big Data Analytic Platform” kind of strategy. (Netezza would surely argue that it was the first, but that depends on how seriously one took Netezza’s prior attempt.) Many of the details are different from Aster’s, of course, but the general philosophy is similar. So far, Netezza has announced one interesting proprietary library of analytic packages (for linear/matrix algebra), plus the port of 4,000 or so functions in open source libraries.
• Vertica 4.0. Vertica has had a highly innovative columnar DBMS architecture from the getgo, but at the cost of some restrictions or awkwardness in the relationship between data layout and SQL processing. Vertica says that Vertica 4.0 fixes all that. In addition, it has some analytic processing enhancements, especially in the time series area, where Vertica doesn’t vigorously dispute that Sybase IQ previously had an advantage.

In addition,

• Teradata is announcing its Data Warehouse Appliance 2580, the successor to the Teradata 2550. This is purely a hardware refresh; Teradata’s hardware and software upgrades are not generally synced. The Teradata 2580 upgrades CPUs from Harpertown to Nehalem, includes 3X the RAM of its predecessor, and offers an option for 1 TB disks (thus lowering the bottom price/TB a lot, to $31K list).
• Aster, Vertica, and ParAccel have all called attention to the fact that, if solid-state drives have interfaces like those of disk drives, and if a DBMS supports disk drives, then a DBMS also supports solid-state drives as well. At least Aster and ParAccel have signaled that they have at least one customer or prospect each interested in Fusion I/O’s solid-state technology, especially in the retail sector. This is basically a hardware matter as well, and a big deal only for those who were somehow unaware of the impending dominance of solid-state memory technology.
• Sybase announced its Aleri acquisition earlier this month.
• Various vendors have bragged about various rankings, awards, or benchmarks, or – sometimes less tediously — about last year’s sales results.

• Netezza’s software runs on well-designed proprietary hardware. Aster runs on hardware that’s more off-the-shelf.
• Aster was first to ship, and will also be first to ship an IDE (Integrated Development Environment).
• MapReduce is central to Aster’s approach. Netezza TwinFin(i) supports MapReduce too, specifically a Hadoop implementation, but I don’t get the sense that everything Netezza does is built on MapReduce underpinnings.
• Both Aster and Netezza try to provide rich functionality for creating in-memory data structures parallel analytic programs can use. Both seem to let you escape from the pure relational-table paradigm more easily than, say, Teradata’s new persistent memory capabilities do.
• Aster and Netezza have made different choices about what kinds of prebuilt analytic packages to offer. Netezza could actually leapfrog Aster in this regard, but let’s see where each vendor is by, say, mid-year. If you care about the details of built-in analytic functions, you really should consider executing non-disclosure agreements with both those companies.
• Both Aster and Netezza stress that you can run analytic functions out-of-process, greatly reducing the chance that they crash the database. Netezza and I’m pretty sure also Aster also retain the option of running in-process, which provides maximum performance. (In Netezza’s case C++ is the only in-process language supported, and I think Aster has a similar limitation.)
• Like Aster, Netezza is integrating SQL queries and other analytic processing under the same workload management rubric.
• Much like Aster, Netezza is tap-dancing by implying much richer forthcoming SAS support than anything currently announced. (The crunch-per-paragraph ratio in either vendor’s SAS-related press releases to date is distressingly low.)

More specifically, here are some highlights of what I know, am guessing, and/or am allowed to say about Netezza TwinFin(i) at this time.

• The foundation for the analytic add-ons in Netezza TwinFin(i) is some sort of low-level “analytic executables.” Not understanding exactly what these are is my biggest area of confusion in the whole TwinFin(i) stack. Are they all C++, with everything translated into same? Is there Java all the way down as an alternative? (E.g., Hadoop is written in Java.) Anyhow, whatever it is, it’s surely a big improvement on Netezza’s prior Verilog-based generation of analytic extensibility technology.
• The announced list of languages supported in Netezza TwinFin(i) is Java, Python, Fortran, R, and C/C++. More are coming.
• Netezza has named a lot of analytic functions it is adding, and hinting about more to come. It has named CRAN/R and GNU libraries, saying those have 1900 or more functions each. Netezza has also built its own linear algebra library for TwinFin(i), called nzMatrix. And as previously noted, TwinFin(i) also boasts a Hadoop implementation.
• I haven’t heard about much in the way of TwinFin(i)-specific IDE support.
• I don’t really have details as to what kinds of in-memory data structures Netezza TwinFin(i) does or doesn’t support.

• Aster Data Analytic Foundation, a set of analytic packages prebuilt in Aster’s SQL-MapReduce
• Aster Data Developer Express, an Eclipse-based IDE (Integrated Development Environment) for developing and testing applications built on Aster nCluster, Aster SQL-MapReduce, and Aster Data Analytic Foundation

And in other Aster news:

• Along with the development GUI in Aster nCluster 4.5, there is also a new administrative GUI.
• Aster has certified that nCluster works with Fusion I/O boards, because at least one retail industry prospect cares. However, that in no way means that arm’s-length Fusion I/O certification is Aster’s ultimate solid-state memory strategy.
• I had the wrong impression about how far Aster/SAS integration has gotten. So far, it’s just at the connector level.

Aster Data Developer Express evidently does some cool stuff, like providing some sort of parallelism testing right on your desktop. It also generates lots of stub code, saving humans from the tedium of doing that. Useful, obviously.

But mainly, I want to write about the analytic packages. I’m not convinced that they’re a big deal in themselves yet, or that a whole lot of person-months have gone into their combined development. Still, I think they provide a great indication of one direction in which analytic functionality is going. And by the way, Aster promises to release a lot more of that kind of thing over the next 12 months.

Aster’s flagship analytic package is nPath, which is like a regular expression matcher, but for (time) series of data rather than for character strings. The main use for nPath is in pulling specific kinds of event sequences out of web or network event logs. However, one could imagine uses in other sectors that focus on temporal or sequential data (e.g., trading, intelligence, other sensor analysis), should existing SQL- and/or CEP-based technologies not prove sufficiently flexible. Aster 4.5 adds some new aggregation capabilities around nPath.

Other not-wholly-new packages in the Aster Data Analytic Foundation announcement are for sessionization (of clickstream data and the like) and tokenization (of text/character string data). While sessionization can be done in SQL, Aster thinks its MapReduce-based version is faster, since it doesn’t require self-joins. Makes sense. Aster’s tokenization sounds lame, however – text analytics in MapReduce tends to reinvent simplistic wheels for no clear reason, and Aster doesn’t seem to be an exception. (Aster would argue, however, that anything it does in SQL-MapReduce is more flexible than pure SQL or pure MapReduce alternatives.)

Another example of better-living-without-self-joins is Aster’s new market basket package. This lets you look at a set of point-of-sale data, pick a small integer N, and pull out all the sets of N things that were bought by the same person at the same time. I haven’t probed the claim in detail, but Aster implies there’s less combinatorial explosion in its approach than it is in the self-join alternative.

Note: Gartner highlighted self joins as a performance challenge in its recent Data Warehouse Magic Quadrant.

Aster is also releasing a few statistical and general analytic functions — specifically (and I quote a slide):

• exponential moving average
• weighted moving average
• simple moving average
• volume-weighted average price
• correlation
• linear regression
• logistic regression
• approximate_percentile
• approximate_count_distinct

The point of the last two items on the list is that if you set a non-zero tolerance for error, you can you can count things or order them into bins very efficiently – especially in terms of RAM — while being guaranteed not to exceed your error tolerance.

Note: One obvious inference from this list — which Aster gladly confirms — is that Aster has high hopes of selling to the financial services industry.

Finally, Aster is releasing its first pure graph-analytic function, for finding the shortest path between a given pair of nodes.

While I had the Aster folks on the phone anyway, I also took the opportunity to ask about the Aster nCluster 4.0 capability to create fairly persistent non-relational in-memory data structures. Specifically, I asked whether different users could access the same in-memory structure, and was told that this is a little klugey but not too horrendous. That suggests Aster’s capability may be a strict superset of UDF-based (User-Defined Function) approaches to meeting the same need, at least from a functionality standpoint. However, ease of creating those in-memory structures may still be better in the more SQL/UDF-centric approach favored by Teradata.

For starters, there’s a lot of new analytic functionality. This isn’t Aster/Netezza-style ambitious. Rather, there’s a lot more SQL-99 functionality, plus some time series extensions of the sort that financial services firms – an important market for Vertica – need and love. Vertica did suggest a couple of these time series extensions are innovative, but I haven’t yet gotten detail about those.

Perhaps even more important, Vertica is cleaning up a lot of its previous SQL optimization and execution weirdnesses. In no particular order, I was told:

• Vertica’s delete performance is up “literally” 30-100X, at least in the case of “large” deletes. Performance for “large” updates has been enhanced as well.
• Vertica has finally cleaned up all vestiges of its prior bias to star schemas. For example, Vertica concedes that its product previously would sometimes force a star execution plan that wasn’t really appropriate.
• It is no longer the case that you need to define projections before you load a table into Vertica. This is now fully automatic.
• Vertica 4.0 automatically redesigns the database when new nodes are added to the system.
• When a database designer does hand-tune projections – and there’s no shame in this still being a possibility in Vertica 4.0 – that hand-tuning is now pulled back into the automatic generation/recommendation/whatever wizards for further projections. I.e., there’s a kind of DBA round-trip engineering going on.
• Vertica used to require that tables being joined be identically “segmented” (I think this means distributed across joins). That is no longer the case in 4.0.
• In connection with this new-found flexibility, Vertica now supports full outer joins directly, rather than requiring the left outer join/right outer join/UNION kluge.
• The Vertica 4.0 optimizer is smarter than its predecessor about things like predicate pushdown into subqueries, or exploiting commonality between predicates and partition keys.
• There’s a fundamental change that I don’t understand very well in the Vertica execution engine basic unit of work. It sounds as if in the past all the disk-based data containers the query needed got opened at once and read into memory, whether or not there was enough RAM and CPU cores to handle them, and this problem has now been fixed.
• Vertica always seemed to say that you could query immediately on new data, because even if it hadn’t hit disk yet – the ROS (Read-Optimized Store) – it was available in memory – the WOS (Write-Optimized Store). And queries were in essence federated between the ROS and WOS. But apparently it’s a new feature in Vertica 4.0 that you can read totally fresh data without locking. I confess to not understanding this very well either. (It has something to do with what  Vertica calls “Epochs”.)
• Temporary tables can now be created in Vertica on a local/session basis without any DDL. Make temporary tables easier and more performant is important for a variety of reasons:
  • Microstrategy, Company V* et al. use lots of temp tables. E.g,, Company V on Vertica has 3000 permanent tables and 5-7000 temporary ones.
  • Vertica rightly points out that temporary tables are also important for ELT (Extract/Load/Transform).
  • Vertica further says that single-node OEMs such as security appliance vendors use lots of temp tables.

*Company V = one of the more prominent vertical-market application providers.

In other Vertica highlights:

• It sounds as if 4.0 is the first Vertica release with what I would regard as serious workload management.
• While Vertica has stored and retrieved Unicode since Vertica 3.5 or so, 4.0 will be the first Vertica release in which Unicode is sorted and collated properly.
• Stored-procedure-like functionality is still a future for Vertica.

• Personally selected annual lists of 12 “Most influential” companies and 36 “Companies to watch” in analytics- and database-related sectors.
• Made it clear that these are his personal selections.
• Nonetheless has called it an Editors’ Choice list, rather than Editor’s Choice.

(Actually, he’s really called it an “award.”)

People advising Doug — who come to think of it actually are Contributing Editors to Intelligent Enterprise or something like that — included Cindi Howson, Seth Grimes, three others, and me.

And if past is prologue, I will now get a flood of PR emails calling my attention to this award that I already have both participated in and blogged about.

As usual, the sense:nonsense ratio on these lists was pleasingly high. Analytic DBMS vendors cited included IBM, Microsoft, Netezza, Oracle, Sybase, and Teradata in the “Most influential” group, with Aster, Greenplum, HP, Infobright, and Vertica among the “To watch” crowd. It’s tough to argue with those selections, whose most questionable element is probably the not-ridiculous supposition that HP could do something interesting over the coming year. Cloudera and Intersystems also made the list, deservedly.

All three of QlikTech, Tableau, and TIBCO made the list, which is appropriate given the potential for and interest in interactive data exploration technology.  The BI majors, independent or otherwise, were all on as well. In text mining, Doug included Attensity and Clarabridge, which I think is exactly right. (Plus OpenCalais.)  Upon reflection, I probably should have nominated Mark Logic, even though most of its business is non-enterprise; but hey, nobody’s perfect, and the same goes for lists. Open source was well represented, with Apache, Actuate, Jaspersoft, Eclipse, Infobright, Nuxeo and R all being cited (but not Ingres or Pentaho). Kalido made the list, with my endorsement, their silly I-CASE like marketing messaging notwithstanding.

Speaking of imperfections — there only are a few category names, and so category assignments can be pretty bizarre. (In an ideal world, middleware wouldn’t be included under “enterprise applications”.) Greenplum hasn’t really “extended” its DBMS with a “cloud” option. As much as I’d like Netezza to be more influential than SAP, that’s probably not the best way to rank them. And there are a number of “This company is on a roll!” kinds of comments that I wouldn’t necessarily endorse.

But those are all nitpicks. On the whole, it’s another nice job.

*Links to Gartner Magic Quadrants commonly break, but that one worked at the time of this posting.

• Gartner thinks that data warehouse appliances are on the rise, due to their simplicity.
• Gartner correctly says that Teradata has been a data warehouse appliance vendor from the getgo.
• Gartner characterizes IBM as being an appliance vendor as well.
• Gartner suggests that HP is having trouble living up to its technical promises for Neoview.
• Gartner further suggests — no surprise here — that HP Neoview has had very few new customers past its initial wave.
• Gartner notes IBM’s difficulties in selling data warehouse installations of DB2, despite what on paper is great-sounding technology.
• Gartner says — also no surprise — that illuminate “has seen little success in North America since opening its first office in the U.S. over two years ago.”
• Ingres has evidently gotten a few BI-centric “appliance” deals, e.g. with Jaspersoft. But basically Ingres isn’t doing well in data warehousing.
• Gartner does say Ingres has “the strongest open-source DBMS offering for data warehousing.” Being very literal about “open source,” that’s a defensible claim — but it’s pretty irrelevant in a world where Greenplum Single-Node Edition can be had for free. It also waves away all the data mart use cases in which Infobright Community Edition shines.
• Gartner says that Netezza is working out as a “complex workload” enterprise data warehouse provider, according to reference checks, in addition to its established success in data mart scenarios.
• Gartner says Oracle’s offering has finally become “accepted” in the market for databases >50 TB. I guess I can live with that fairly weak claim, but I wouldn’t go much further than that.
• Gartner asserts that, unlike software-only Oracle, Oracle Exadata isn’t significantly harder to administer than “other mixed OLTP/OLAP DBMS vendors,” because Exadata is fast enough you don’t need to jump through all those hoops any more to get tolerable performance. The money quote is “one reference reported reducing the number of indexes by a factor of 100 to fewer than five.” Note, however, that Gartner does not seem to assert that Exadata’s ease of use rivals that of the newer analytic DBMS specialists.
• Gartner confirms Oracle’s reluctance to do onsite Exadata POCs, but says it is not absolute. This is roughly compatible with what I’m hearing elsewhere, and indeed with Oracle own claims to be ramping up availability of Exadata POC hardware.
• Gartner’s criteria for inclusion include at least 10 different organizations having a product “in production.” Thus, the big surprise was ParAccel being included. The money quote there is “With approximately 20 customers in the pharmaceutical, retail, financial and media/advertising analytics sectors, ParAccel has a good reference base.” That assessment is difficult to reconcile with other information, but I’ve been told Gartner is sticking to its guns. That assessment would be even harder to believe if those 20 references were all alleged to be true production customers.
• Gartner notes that you basically can’t run a 1 TB+ MySQL data warehouse without sharding. (Of course, Infobright has an alternative, and up to a small number of terabytes so does Kickfire.)
• Gartner reports that at least some customers are pleased with Sybase IQ’s mixed workload/enterprise data warehouse capabilities.
• Gartner correctly notes that Oracle Exadata is a price-competition challenge for Teradata.
• Gartner notes that 20% of Vertica’s customers are outside the US. While not shocking, that’s more than I realized.
• Gartner notes something I don’t think I’ve posted yet, which is that Vertica has a customer with 300 TB of data. (The identity is a deep dark secret, but if I told you you probably wouldn’t recognize the name anyway.)

As does any such piece, the Gartner Data Warehouse DBMS Magic Quadrant also has outright errors.  For example:

• Aster Data isn’t really “the newest entrant to the DBMS data warehouse world.”
• Aster’s SQL/MapReduce was not new in Release 4.0.
• Greenplum isn’t yet pushing down code to the storage tier.
• I’m not sure what kind of database-tier parallelism Gartner is claiming is new in Oracle in 11g Release 2 — but I doubt it’s really new. Rather, what Oracle has done recently is make parallelism less administratively cumbersome.
• Vertica wasn’t really the first DBMS in the cloud. At most it was the first pure-play analytic DBMS to get there.

To understand Sybase’s plans for Aleri and CEP, it helps to understand Sybase’s current CEP-oriented offering, Sybase RAP. So far as I can tell, Sybase RAP has to date only been sold in the form of Sybase RAP: The Trading Edition. In that guise, Sybase RAP has been sold to >40 outfits since its May, 2008 launch, mainly big names in the investment banking and stock exchange sectors. If I understood correctly, the next target market for Sybase RAP is telcos, for real-time network tuning and management.

In addition to any domain-specific applications, Sybase RAP has three layers:

• CEP (Complex Event Processing). Sybase RAP CEP is based on a version of the Coral8 engine Sybase licensed and has been subsequently developing.
• In-memory DBMS. Sybase’s IMDB is part of (but I guess separable from) and has the same API as Sybase’s OLTP DBMS Adaptive Server Enterprise (ASE, aka Sybase Classic).
• Sybase IQ. Actually, Sybase used the phrase “based on Sybase IQ,” but I’m guessing it’s just Sybase IQ.

In theory, there could be a DBMS other than Sybase IQ, such as Sybase ASE or even Oracle, because Sybase IMDB can talk to a variety of DBMS. I didn’t get the impression, however, that in practice there were any Sybase RAP installations whose persistent DBMS was anything other than Sybase IQ.

Aleri had all along had something called Project Ohio, to merge Coral8 with Aleri Classic. Now Sybase’s own CEP engineering team is being added to the mix, schedules are being reconsidered and haven’t been disclosed yet. (If one woman can produce one baby in nine months, how long does it take nine women to produce a baby?) Apparently Sybase has a dozen programmers in the CEP area, plus ~20 more on Sybase RAP, not counting QA, documentation, etc.; that represents a significant bump to the overall Aleri development team.

Sybase doesn’t seem to have decided what to do yet with the various business intelligence/real-time OLAP engine products and technologies it is inheriting from Aleri.

And finally, some metrics:

• The Sybase/Aleri guys estimate that 1/3 of of Aleri’s customers and even less of its revenue came from outside the financial services sector. They did say the non-financial-services business was “starting to pick up,” but not very convincingly.
• Sybase IQ is now up to >1800 customers, with >200 new ones in 2009.
• Sybase IQ indeed has users taking in market feeds up to 3 terabytes a day, so it probably matches Vertica in having at least several-hundred-terabyte databases in the financial sector.

• The most important issue in database and analytic technology, in my opinion, isn’t technological at all – rather, it’s the legal and political steps needed to preserve liberty in the face of advancing, intrusive technology.
• Another important issue for society – and this one does involve a lot of technology – is scientific number crunching. In particular, database technology for scientific computing needs to be developed much further. I’ll have more to say on all this soon.
• More generally, technology needs to keep advancing for parallel analytics. Fortunately, it is. Watch this space over the next few weeks.
• Oracle has said, in effect, that its most important technological challenge of the decade is getting solid-state memory right. I agree.
• Data volumes will keep going up, up, up. Technology needs to keep evolving accordingly. Much of what I write is on that subject.
• Data needs to be processed and analyzed at very different latencies. And there’s much further to go in integrating disparate latencies.
• Analytic database management in the cloud hasn’t been solved yet, especially for Big Data. Among the reasons are the difficulty of moving data into the cloud (unless it originated there), the slowness of moving it from node to node in shared-nothing architectures (which reduces the elasticity benefit), and above all the long and unpredictable latencies of interprocessor communication while queries are running (a key subject of discussion at the Boston Big Data Summit).
• Better business intelligence user interfaces are increasingly available. I’m thinking particularly of approaches with buzzwords like visualization/interactive exploration or faceted. But they aren’t well-integrated into the overall analytic stack, as big BI vendors are trailing the smaller ones in this regards. (Part of the problem relates to my previous point.)
• Application development over text search isn’t in the same league as application development over relational DBMS. The choices are mainly XML (e.g., MarkLogic), SQL for text integrated into RDBMS (limited by the weakness of those integrations), and something like Attivio’s Java SDK. There’s a major conceptual barrier in building those apps, namely the unpredictability of query results. Still, it should be possible to do better.
• Similarly, text analytics and conventional analytics exist well side by side. They can even be in the same database and/or dashboard, although in practice that is limited by the strong SaaS focus of text mining vendors and users. But analytic integration of them is really hard. Linguistic imprecision is, in my opinion, only the #2 reason for this difficulty. The #1 reason is that trends detected by text analytics are much less precise than trends on tabular data – e.g., a 50% increase in a certain kind of complaint may be no more significant than a 5% change in a revenue variable.
• I’m increasingly persuaded that graph analytics can be handled without a graph-centric data model. But right now, it isn’t being handled well at all. Lots more needs to be done – although when it is, it will just exacerbate the privacy/liberty dangers that so concern me.

Other posts based on my January, 2010 New England Database Summit keynote address

• Data-based snooping — a huge threat to liberty that we’re all helping make worse
• Flash, other solid-state memory, and disk
• Interesting trends in database and analytic technology

One section covered recent/ongoing/near-future trends that I thought were particularly interesting, including:

Simpler database technology, by which I mean DBMS that are:

• Easier to administer than market-leading systems …
• … even if at the cost of being special-purpose
• E.g.,
  • MySQL and older mid-tier RDBMS such as Progress
  • Many analytic DBMS and appliances, most notably Netezza’s

For general purpose or OLTP uses, I’m not a big fan of MySQL (not enough progress in making it industrial-strength), PostgreSQL (no good company behind it – I’m a non-fan of EnterpriseDB), or Ingres (open source or not, it’s an antiquated system that hasn’t been invested in as much as Oracle, DB2 or SQL Server).

But I get the impression there are a lot of contenders among small startups, featuring very new architectures for OLTP or general-purpose database management. VoltDB comes to mind. NimbusDB is finally within range of getting funded. Dan Weinreb told me Friday he knows of a bunch of others as well. And that’s all before we even get into the NoSQL kind of alternative.

Flexible storage architectures. That’s starting out with an emphasis on hybrid columnar, as in the examples of Vertica and Greenplum. Oracle (to whom I’m under no NDA obligation) and other vendors (to whom I am) are going that way as well.

Multi-tier database architectures, by which I mean at least two things:

• The database tier/server tier split of Exadata
• Hybrid RAM/disk architectures, examples of which include
  • Vertica’s RAM-based write-optimized store
  • Sensage’s CEP-in-the-DBMS
  • This in-memory analytics stuff we keep hearing about from the BI vendors
  • Any true in-memory/disk hybrid, such as the regrettably sidelined solidDB
  • Smart thinking by numerous DBMS vendors about optimizing the use of RAM and/or Level 2 cache

Netezza is particularly interesting to watch in this regard because it:

• Had a pretty strict storage/other processing split in prior product generations and …
• … ditched that in its latest generation …
• … which however is focused on optimizing the use of RAM cache

Also noteworthy is Petascan, the stealth-mode –and therefore harder to watch right now – company I keep teasing about, which makes a strong case for carrying the database/storage tier split into the flash/solid-state memory technology generation. Calpont also has a server/storage tier split, but that’s of mainly theoretical interest unless and until Calpont actually ships an MPP version of InfiniDB.

Cheaper parts, which have of course been a huge trend for decades. Solid-state memory will soon conquer the world. Meanwhile, cheaper sensors drive that machine-generated data I keep talking about.

An ever-better understanding of scale-out technology, in several respects, including:

• Query, notably data movement for MPP DBMS
• Update, especially minimalistic DBMS approaches, be they sharded MySQL or more NoSQLish
• Number-crunching, especially via MapReduce and/or parallel analytic libraries integrated into DBMS

Cool trends I touched on more briefly include:

• More data being available for analysis. This was a core theme of my Enzee Universe keynote speeches; there are also some notes on it in my post based on my Boston Big Data Summit talk.
• More users being served by analytics. Ditto.
• Data exploration/visualization, ala QlikView, Spotfire, or Tableau, and also the faceted stuff.
• The democratization of data mining. But I’m not as sure of that one as of the others…

One area I flat-out forgot to mention is easy data mart spin-out.

Other posts based on my January, 2010 New England Database Summit keynote address

• Data-based snooping — a huge threat to liberty that we’re all helping make worse
• Flash, other solid-state memory, and disk
• Open issues in database and analytic technology