Analytic technologies
Discussion of technologies related to information query and analysis. Related subjects include:
- Business intelligence
- Data warehousing
- (in Text Technologies) Text mining
- (in The Monash Report) Data mining
- (in The Monash Report) General issues in analytic technology
Yahoo is up to 10 petabytes now?
According to somebody (I forget who) who attended Yahoo’s SIGMOD presentation last week, the big Yahoo database is now up to 10 petabytes in size, in line with Yahoo’s predictions last year. Apparently, Yahoo also gave more details of how the technology works.
| Categories: Columnar database management, Data warehousing, Web analytics, Yahoo | 5 Comments |
User data vs. raw disk space as a marketing metric
I tried to post a comment on Daniel Abadi’s blog, but doing so seems to require some sort of registration process, so I’m posting here instead.
In a comment to his post on node scalability, Daniel Abadi argued that disk space is a better metric to use in marketing than (presumably compressed) user data. Well, I imagine he didn’t quite mean to say that, but that’s actually what he wound up saying, starting from the accurate observation that compression ratios vary wildly from one data set to another, even more than they vary from product to product on the same data.
Nonetheless, I favor user data as a metric because:
- That’s what users care about.
- That’s how a number of analytic DBMS vendors, including Vertica, actually price.
| Categories: Data warehousing, Parallelization, Pricing | 3 Comments |
The TPC-H schema
Would anybody recommend in real life running the TPC-H schema for that data? (I.e., fully normalized, no materialized views.) If so — why????
| Categories: Benchmarks and POCs, Data warehousing | 13 Comments |
Notes on columnar/TPC-H compression
I was chatting with Omer Trajman of Vertica, and he said that a 70% compression figure for ParAccel’s recent TPC-H filing sounded about right.* When I noted that seemed kind of low, Omer pointed out that TPC-H data is pseudo-random, while real-life data has much more correlation among the values in different columns. E.g., in retail, a customer is likely to consistently shop at the same stores and to put similar items into his shopping basket).
*Omer was involved in Vertica’s TPC-H-data-based load speed benchmark, and is Vertica’s representative to the TPC.
But why does this matter? After all, Vertica compresses one column at a time (unlike, say, Clearpace). Well, the reason is that Vertica — like other column stores — wants to store different columns in the same row order, for obvious benefits in both reading and writing. So, for example, if all the rows that include Gotham City are grouped sequentially, then all the rows mentioning Bruce Wayne are likely to be near each other as well, while none of the rows that mention Clark Kent will be mixed in.
And when a set of consecutive entries has low cardinality, it’s easier to get high levels of compression.
| Categories: Benchmarks and POCs, Columnar database management, Data warehousing, Database compression, Vertica Systems | Leave a Comment |
NoSQL?
Eric Lai emailed today to ask what I thought about the NoSQL folks, and especially whether I thought their ideas were useful for enterprises in general, as opposed to just Web 2.0 companies. That was the first I heard of NoSQL, which seems to be a community discussing SQL alternatives popular among the cloud/big-web-company set, such as BigTable, Hadoop, Cassandra and so on. My short answers are:
- In most cases, no.
- Most of these technologies are designed for simple, high-volume OLTP (OnLine Transaction Processing.) Most large enterprises have an established way of doing OLTP, probably via relational database management systems. Why change?
- MapReduce is an exception, in that it’s designed for analytics. MapReduce may be useful for enterprises. But where it is, it probably should be integrated into an analytic DBMS.
- There’s one big countervailing factor to all these generalities — schema flexibility.
As for the longer form, let me start by noting that there are two main kinds of reason for not liking SQL. Read more
Correction to a recent quote
I’m quoted in a recent article around Aster’s appliance announcement as saying data warehouse appliances are more suitable for small workgroups of analysts crunching small amounts of data than they are for other uses.
But that’s not what I think at all.
I do think the ease-of-administration pitch for appliances makes them particularly well suited for users who want to scrape by without doing much database adminstration. This is especially appealing to departments or smaller enterprises. And the first/best scenario that comes to mind is indeed a small team of analysts, with good SQL skills but lightweight DBA experience, although Netezza has proved that many other kinds of users can find appliances appealing as well.
But that small team of analysts may maintain the largest database in the firm.
And by the way — notwithstanding the MySpace counterexample, most of Aster’s initial customers had <10 terabyte databases, and I think indeed <5 terabyte. The “frontline” pitch succeeded for Aster before (MySpace again aside) any better-big-data-crunching story did.
| Categories: Analytic technologies, Aster Data, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Theory and architecture | Leave a Comment |
Xtreme Data readies a different kind of FPGA-based data warehouse appliance
Xtreme Data called me to talk about its plans in the data warehouse appliance business, almost all details of which are currently embargoed. Still, a few points may be worth noting ahead of more precise information, namely:
- Xtreme Data’s basic idea is to take a custom board and build a data warehouse appliance around it.
- An Xtreme Data board looks a lot like a conventional two-socket board, but has only one four-core CPU. In addition, it sports some FPGAs (Field-Programmable Gate Arrays).
- In the Xtreme Data appliance, the FPGAs will be used for core SQL processing, after the data is ingested via conventional I/O. This is different from Netezza’s approach to FPGA-based data warehouse appliances, in which the FPGA sits in the place of a disk controller and touches the data first, before passing it off to a more or less conventional CPU.
- While preparing entry into the data warehouse appliance business, Xtreme Data has sold its board to 150 other outfits, many quite impressive. Buyers seem to be FPGA users who previously had to craft their own custom boards. According to Xtreme Data, major uses by these customers include:
- Military/intelligence/digital signal processing.
- Military/intelligence/cybersecurity (a newish area for Xtreme Data)
- Bioinformatics/high-throughput gene sequencing (a “handful” of customers)
- Medical imaging
- More or less pure university research of various sorts (around 50 customers)
- … but not database management.
- Xtreme Data’s website has a non-obvious URL. 🙂
So far as I can tell, Xtreme Data’s 1.0 product will — like most other 1.0 analytic database management products — be focused on price/performance, without little or no positive differentiation in the way of features.
| Categories: Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Netezza, Theory and architecture, XtremeData | 6 Comments |
Aster Data enters the appliance game
Aster Data is rolling out a line of nCluster appliances today. Highlights include:
- Configurations ranging from 9 6.25 terabytes to 1 petabyte of user data. (Edit: Here’s the up-to-date data sheet.)
- A $50K “Express Edition” price for <1 terabyte of user data. Unfortunately, that’s the only stated price.
- The option of bundled MicroStrategy.
- “MapReduce” in the name, which suggests something about the positioning — i.e., enterprise decision support, rather than Aster’s usual web/”frontline” emphasis. (Edit: That also fits with Aster’s recent MapReduce-for-.NET announcement.) (Edit: Actual name is Aster MapReduce Data Warehouse Appliance.)
- Claims that because Aster runs effectively on cheaper, more truly “commodity” hardware than competitors, you get more hardware bang for the buck if you buy from Aster.
I don’t have a lot more to add right now, mainly because I wrote at some length about Aster’s non-appliance-specific, non-MapReduce technology and positioning a couple of weeks ago.
| Categories: Analytic technologies, Aster Data, Business intelligence, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Database compression, MapReduce, Pricing | 16 Comments |
My current customer list among the analytic DBMS specialists
(This is an updated version of an August, 2008 post.)
One of my favorite pages on the Monash Research website is the list of many current and a few notable past customers. (Another favorite page is the one for testimonials.) For a variety of reasons, I won’t undertake to be more precise about my current customer list than that. But I don’t think it would hurt anything to list the analytic/data warehouse DBMS/appliance specialists in the group. They are:
- Aster Data
- Greenplum
- Infobright
- Kickfire
- Kognitio
- Microsoft
- Netezza (my biggest client this year, probably, because of all the Enzee Universe appearances)
- Sybase
- Teradata
- Vertica
- Attivio, which may or may not be construed as being in the analytic DBMS business
- Clearpace, ditto
All of those are Monash Advantage members.
If you care about all this, you may also be interested in the rest of my standards and disclosures.
| Categories: About this blog, Aster Data, Data warehousing, Greenplum, Infobright, Kickfire, Microsoft and SQL*Server, Netezza, Sybase, Teradata, Vertica Systems | 4 Comments |
ParAccel pricing
As I noted in connection with ParAccel’s recent TPC-H filing, I think the whole exercise is basically an expensive joke. But one slightly useful spin-off is that ParAccel disclosed pricing. Specifically, ParAccel’s stated price in the disclosure document is:
- $100,000/TB license fee (user data). That’s like Vertica, although I don’t know whether ParAccel emulates Vertica’s policy of making test and development licenses free.
- 57% quantity discount at 30 terabytes. That’s not surprising.
- 1% annual maintenance fee (applied to the discounted price). That’s astounding.
Last year ParAccel quoted prices of $100,000/TB or $50,000/server. The latter figure would seem to have led to lower numbers on the benchmark configuration, so perhaps it’s no longer an option on ParAccel’s price list.
| Categories: Benchmarks and POCs, Data warehousing, ParAccel, Pricing | 3 Comments |