QlikView – a leader in memory-centric BI

QlikTech — the vendor of QlikView — contacted me to tell their memory-centric BI story. A Swedish company with >$23 million in estimated license revenue last year and a 100%ish growth rate, they claim to be the leader in that space, pulling ahead of Applix. But for now, I’ll call them “a” leader, and say that their story sounds like a hybrid between those of Applix (TM1 product) and SAP (BI Accelerator).

Read more

White paper on memory-centric data management — excerpt

Here’s an excerpt from the introduction to my new white paper on memory-centric data management. I don’t know why WordPress insists on showing the table gridlines, but I won’t try to fix that now. Anyhow, if you’re interested enough to read most of this excerpt, I strongly suggest downloading the full paper.

	Introduction
Conventional DBMS don’t always perform adequately.	Ideally, IT managers would never need to think about the details of data management technology. Market-leading, general-purpose DBMS (DataBase Management Systems) would do a great job of meeting all information management needs. But we don’t live in an ideal world. Even after decades of great technical advances, conventional DBMS still can’t give your users all the information they need, when and where they need it, at acceptable cost. As a result, specialty data management products continue to be needed, filling the gaps where more general DBMS don’t do an adequate job.
Memory-centric technology is a powerful alternative.	One category on the upswing is memory-centric data management technology. While conventional DBMS are designed to get data on and off disk quickly, memory-centric products (which may or may not be full DBMS) assume all the data is in RAM in the first place. The implications of this design choice can be profound. RAM access speeds are up to 1,000,000 times faster than random reads on disk. Consequently, whole new classes of data access methods can be used when the disk speed bottleneck is ignored. Sequential access is much faster in RAM, too, allowing yet another group of efficient data access approaches to be implemented.
It does things disk-based systems can’t.	If you want to query a used-book database a million times a minute, that’s hard to do in a standard relational DBMS. But Progress’ ObjectStore gets it done for Amazon. If you want to recalculate a set of OLAP (OnLine Analytic Processing) cubes in real-time, don’t look to a disk-based system of any kind. But Applix’s TM1 can do just that. And if you want to stick DBMS instances on 99 nodes of a telecom network, all persisting data to a 100th node, a disk-centric system isn’t your best choice – but Solid’s BoostEngine should get the job done.
Memory-centric data managers fill the gap, in various guises.	Those products are some leading examples of a diverse group of specialist memory-centric data management products. Such products can be optimized for OLAP or OLTP (OnLine Transaction Processing) or event-stream processing. They may be positioned as DBMS, quasi-DBMS, BI (Business Intelligence) features, or some utterly new kind of middleware. They may come from top-tier software vendors or from the rawest of startups. But they all share a common design philosophy: Optimize the use of ever-faster semiconductors, rather than focusing on (relatively) slow-spinning disks.
They have a rich variety of benefits.	For any technology that radically improves price/performance (or any other measure of IT efficiency), the benefits can be found in three main categories: Doing the same things you did before, only more cheaply; Doing the same things you did before, only better and/or faster; Doing things that weren’t technically or economically feasible before at all. For memory-centric data management, the “things that you couldn’t do before at all” are concentrated in areas that are highly real-time or that use non-relational data structures. Conversely, for many relational and/or OLTP apps, memory-centric technology is essentially a much cheaper/better/faster way of doing what you were already struggling through all along.
Memory-centric technology has many applications.	Through both OEM and direct purchases, many enterprises have already adopted memory-centric technology. For example:
	Financial services vendors use memory-centric data management throughout their trading systems. Telecom service vendors use memory-centric data management in multiple provisioning, billing, and routing applications. Memory-centric data management is used to accelerate web transactions, including in what may be the most demanding OLTP app of all — Amazon.com’s online bookstore. Memory-centric data management technology is OEMed in a variety of major enterprise network management products, including HP Openview. Memory-centric data management is used to accelerate analytics across a broad variety of industries, especially in such areas as planning, scenarios, customer analytics, and profitability analysis.

Memory-centric data management whitepaper

I have finally finished and uploaded the long-awaited white paper on memory-centric data management.

This is the project for which I origially coined the term “memory-centric data management,” after realizing that the prevalent “in-memory DBMS” creates all sorts of confusion about how and whether data persists on disk. The white paper clarifies and updates points I have been making about memory-centric data management since last summer. Sponsors included:

• Applix, vendors of in-memory/memory-centric MOLAP tool TM1
• Progress Software, vendors of ObjectStore, an OODBMS that has more impressive references in-memory or otherwise memory-centric than it does in classical disk-based configurations, and also of the Apama stream processing products
• SAP, vendors of the BI Accelerator functionality of SAP NetWeaver, or whatever tortured name they want to give it this month — basically, that’s a very cool in-memory columnar data mart technology
• Solid Information Technology, vendor of hybrid in-memory/disk-based OLTP RDBMS. Historically focused on the embedded systems market, especially telecom and networking, they’ve recently been in the news because of a deal with MySQL that is designed to extend their reach.
• Intel, makers of the processors used to run a lot of the other sponsors’ products (including all BI Accelerator installations to date).

If there’s one area in my research I’m not 100% satisfied with, it may be the question of where the true hardware bottlenecks to memory-centric data management lie (it’s obvious that the bottleneck to disk-centric data management is random disk access). Is it processor interconnect (around 1 GB/sec)? Is it processor-to-cache connections (around 5 GB/sec)? My prior pronouncements, the main body of the white paper, and the Intel Q&A appendix to the white paper may actually have slightly different spins on these points.

And by the way — the current hard limit on RAM/board isn’t 2^64 bytes, but a “mere” 2^40. But don’t worry; it will be up to 2^48 long before anybody actually puts 256 gigabytes under the control of a single processor.

Why I use the word “MOLAP”

“MOLAP” stands for “Multidimensional OLAP.” It’s almost exactly what Ted Codd was referring to in the white paper where he introduced the term “OLAP.” Relational advocates correctly point out that relational tables are NOT “two-dimensional;” rather, every column in a table represents a dimension.

(If that’s not obvious, think of rows in a table as n-tuples, and n-tuples as akin to vectors. Then think back to the linear algebra segment at the beginning of your Calculus of Several Variables class. Vector spaces? Dimensions? I rest my case.)

Despite all that, I’m comfortable with the “M” in MOLAP, because a dimension in a MOLAP hypercube is a lot more complex than a dimension in a relational table. The latter is itself — well, if there’s a sort order, it’s typically one dimensional. But the analog in a MOLAP cube can be a whole rich and complex hierarchy.

So yes — MOLAP is inherently more multidimensional than ROLAP, atlhough one can of course do something equivalent to a single hypercube by creating a whole lot of different tables.

Detailed webinar on memory-centric technology

I did a webinar on memory-centric data management for Applix. It was the standard hour in length, but they had me do the vast majority of the talking, so I laid out my ideas in some detail.

In line with their business focus, I emphasized OLAP in general and MOLAP in particular. But I did have a chance to lay out pretty much the whole story.

There’s a lot of material in it I haven’t published yet in written form, and some nuances I may never get around to writing down. So if you’re sufficiently interested in the area, I recommend watching the webinar.

Memory-centric research — hear the latest!

What I’ve written so far in this blog (and in Computerworld) about memory-centric data management technology is just the tip of the iceberg. A detailed white paper is forthcoming, sponsored by most of the industry leaders: Applix, Progress, SAP, Intel (in association with SAP), and Solid. (But for some odd reason Oracle declined to participate …)

A lot of the material will be rolled out publically for the first time in a webinar on Wednesday, January 25, at 11 EST. Applix is the host. To participate, please follow this link.

I’m also holding forth online, in webinars and even video, on other subjects these days. More details may be found over in the Monash Report.

SAP’s version of DBMS2

I just spent a couple of days at SAP’s analyst meeting, and realized something I’d somewhat forgotten – much of the DBMS2 concept was inspired by SAP’s technical strategy. That’s not to say that SAP’s techies necessarily agree with me on every last point. But I do think it is interesting to review SAP’s version of DBMS2, to the extent I understand it.

1. SAP’s Enterprise Services Architecture (ESA) is meant to be, among other things, an abstraction layer over relational DBMS. The mantra is that they’re moving to a “message-based architecture” as opposed to a “database architecture.” These messages are in the context of a standards-based SOA, with a strong commitment to remaining open and standards-based, at least on the data and messaging levels. (The main limitation on openness that I’ve detected is that they don’t think much of standards such as BPEL in the business process definition area, which aren’t powerful enough for them.)

2. One big benefit they see to this strategy is that it reduces the need to have grand integrated databases. If one application manages data for an entity that is also important to another application, the two applications can exchange messages about the entity. Anyhow, many of their comments make it clear that, between partner company databases (a bit of a future) and legacy app databases (a very big factor in the present day), SAP is constantly aware of situations in which a single integrated database in infeasible.

3. SAP is still deeply suspicious of redundant transactional data. They feel that with redundant data you can’t have a really clean model – unless, of course, you code up really rigorous synchronization. However, if for some reason synchronization is preferred – e.g., for performance reasons — it can be hidden from users and most developers.

4. One area where SAP definitely favors redundancy and synchronization is data warehousing. Indeed, they have an ever more elaborate staging system to move data from operational to analytic systems.

5. In general, they are far from being relational purists. For example, Shai Agassi referred to doing things that you can’t do in a pure relational approach. And Peter Zencke reminded me that this attitude is nothing new. SAP has long had complex business objects, and even done some of its own memory management to make them performant, when they were structured in a manner that RDBMS weren’t well suited for. (I presume he was referring largely to BAPI.)

6. That said, they’re of course using relational data stores today for most things. One exception is text/content, which they prefer to store in their own text indexing/management system TREX. Another example is their historical support for MOLAP, although they seem to be edging as far away from that as they can without offending the MOLAP-loving part of their customer base.

Incidentally, the whole TREX strategy is subject to considerable doubt too. It’s not a state-of-the-art product, and they currently don’t plan to make it into one. In particular, they have a prejudice against semi-automated ontology creation, and that has clearly become a requirement for top-tier text technologies.

7. One thing that Peter said which confused me a bit is when we were talking about nonrelational data retrieval. The example he used was retrieving information on all of a specific sales reps’ customers, or perhaps on several sales reps’ customers. I got the feeling he was talking about the ability to text search on multiple columns and/or multiple tables/objects/whatever at once, but I can’t honestly claim that I connected all the dots.

And of course, the memory-centric ROLAP tool BI Accelerator — technology that’s based on TREX — is just another example of how SAP is willing to go beyond passively connecting to a single RDBMS. And while their sponsorship of MaxDB isn’t really an example of that, it is another example of how SAP’s strategy is not one to gladden the hearts of the top-tier DBMS vendors.

Defining and surveying “Memory-centric data management”

I’m writing more and more about memory-centric data management technology these days, including in my latest Computerworld column. You may be wondering what that term refers to. Well, I’ve basically renamed what are commonly called “in-memory DBMS,” for what I think is a very good reason: Most of the products in the category aren’t true DBMS, aren’t wholly in-memory, or both! Indeed, if you catch me in a grouchy mood I might argue that “in-memory DBMS” is actually a contradiction in terms.

I’ll give a quick summary of the vendors and products I am focusing on in this newly-named category, and it should be clearer what I mean:

• TimesTen (now owned by Oracle): TimesTen is the quintessentional “in-memory DBMS.” It’s a fairly full relational DBMS, but if you want to persist memory to disk it has to be handed off to a conventional DBMS. Historically, that has usually been MySQL or Oracle. TimesTen’s biggest market penetration has been in financial trading.
• Solid Information Technology‘s BoostEngine: Solid is a Finnish company (or was — it’s pretty American now) specializing in embedded DBMS sold mainly for telecommunication uses. Big OEM customers include several well-known telecom equipment manufacturers and HP (for OpenView). “Embedded” often means no DBA, no monitor, no keyboard — they box manufacturer installs it and there it stays for the life of the product. Solid has to offer strong replication capabilities, since its products are often used in highly distributed (e.g., multiblade, multibox) environments. So it’s taken the next step and exploited the replication by allowing customers to use some instances of the product disklessly.
• Event-stream products from Streambase and Progress: The canonical application for event-stream products is automating financial trading decisions based on the flow of market information. Mike Stonebraker, the brains behind Streambase, has recently popularized the idea; Progress bought Apama, who actually have been in the business longer. These applications require even more speed than the financial trading apps that TimesTen handles, and they discard most of the information they look at. In-memory is the only way to go.
• Progress’s ObjectStore: ObjectStore comes from the company Object Design, which merged into Excelon, which was acquired by Progress. It’s really a toolkit for building DBMS and similar systems, which is why it’s at various times been marketed as an OODBMS and an XML DBMS, without a lot of success either way. But there have been a few sterling apps built in ObjectStore even so, including a key part of the Amazon bookstore Despite this limited market success, a significant fraction of Progress’s best engineering talent has moved over to the Real-Time Division to focus on ObjectStore and other memory-centric products. The memory-centric aspect of ObjectStore is this: ObjectStore’s big virtue is that it gets objects from disk to memory and vice-versa very efficiently, then distributes and caches them around a network as needed. This was originally invented for client/server processing, but works fine in a multi-server thin client setup as well. And object processing, of course, relies on a whole lot of pointers. And pointer-chasing is pretty much the worst way to deal with the disk speed barrier, unless you do it in main memory.
• Applix‘s TM1: Like many companies in the analytics area, Applix has had trouble deciding whether it sells applications, BI system software, or both. But in any case its core technology is TM1, a memory-centric MOLAP offering. Traditional MOLAP products reside on the horns of a nasty dilemma: They rely on precalculation to give good performance, but that causes ghastly database explosion. Applix gets out of this problem by doing no precalculation whatsoever, loading the data into main memory, and executing all queries on the fly.
• SAP’s BI Accelerator: SAP is building out an elaborate technology stack with NetWeaver, especially in the BI area. One important aspect is that the full data warehouse is logically broken (or copied) into a series of data marts called “InfoCubes.” BI Accelerator takes the logical next step, loading an entire InfoCube into main memory. Almost every query is executed via a full table scan, which would be insane on disk but makes perfect sense when the data is already in RAM.

So there you have it. There are a whole lot of technologies out there that manage data in RAM, in ways that would make little or no sense if disks were more intimately involved. Conventional DBMS also try to exploit RAM and limit disk access, via caching; but generally the data access methods they use in RAM are pretty similar to those they use when going out to disk. So memory-centric systems can have a major advantage.

Gartner on “The Death of the Database”

Gartner had a recent conference session on “The Death of the Database,” as described in David Berlind’s and Kathy Somebodyorother’s blogs. The core idea was that data in the future might be stored closest to where it would need to be used, which might not be in a traditional DBMS.

Before getting to the real meat of that, let me push back at some of the extremist boobirds. First, I doubt the analysts really talked about “the intersection of a row and a tuple”; it’s much more likely that that is a misquote due to reporting error. Second, their claim that BI will switch from being an “application” to a “service” is not at all unreasonable. BI should never have been viewed as an application; it’s much more a collection of application-enabling technologies. And the analysts explicitly said that DBMS will continue to be useful for analytics. As for their claim that some data needs to be only briefly persistent — they’re absolutely right, but let me defer that point to a separate post on memory-centric OLTP.

All that said — while a lot of their points ring true, it sounds as if they overstated their case in one important area. They’re making it sound as if some of today’s OLTP databases will no longer be needed, and as if tomorrow’s new kinds of OLTP data won’t need to be at least partly persisted to conventional DBMS. Wrong and wrong. Every important transaction needs to wind up in a DBMS. Those DBMS may not be as centralized as previously thought. The data may be copied to non-DBMS data stores (or, more likely, kept in a lightweight local DBMS and copied from there to serioius OLTP database). These DBMS may use native XML rather than traditional tabular data structures. But at the end of the day, transactional databases will continue to be needed for all the reasons they’ve been necessary in the past.

The end of the single-server DBMS vendor

For all practical purposes, there are no DBMS vendors left advocating single-server strategies. Oracle was the last one, but it just acquired in-memory data management vendor TimesTen, which will be used as a cache in front of high-performance Oracle databases. (It will also continue to be sold for stand-alone uses, especially in the financial trading and defense/intelligence markets.)

IBM’s Viper is a server-and-a-half story, with lots of integration over a dual-server (one relational, one native XML) base. IBM also is moving aggressively in data integration/federation, with Ascential and many other acquisitions. It also sells a broad range of database products itself, including two DB2s, several Informix products, and so on.

Microsoft also has a multi-server strategy. In its case, relational, text, and MOLAP storage are more separate than in Oracle’s or even IBM’s products; again, there’s a thick layer of technology on top integrating them. An eventual move to native XML storage will, one must imagine, be handled in the same way.

Smaller vendors Sybase and Progress also offer multiple DBMS each.

Teradata is a pretty big player with only one DBMS — but it’s specialized for data warehousing. Teradata is the first to tell you you should use something else for your classical transaction processing.

The Grand Unified Integrated Database theory is, so far as I can tell, quite dead. Some people just refuse to admit that fact.

← Previous Page — Next Page →

Subscribe to the Monash Research feed via RSS or email:

Login

Search our blogs and white papers

Monash Research blogs

• DBMS 2 covers database management, analytics, and related technologies.
• Text Technologies covers text mining, search, and social software.
• Strategic Messaging analyzes marketing and messaging strategy.
• The Monash Report examines technology and public policy issues.
• Software Memories recounts the history of the software industry.

User consulting

Building a short list? Refining your strategic plan? We can help.

Vendor advisory

We tell vendors what's happening -- and, more important, what they should do about it.

Monash Research highlights

Learn about white papers, webcasts, and blog highlights, by RSS or email.

• Recent posts

  • Political issues around big tech companies
  • How to beat “fake news”
  • New legal limits on surveillance in the US
  • Brittleness, Murphy’s Law, and single-impetus failures
  • Brittleness and incremental improvement

• Categories

  • About this blog
  • Analytic glossary
  • Analytic technologies
    • Business intelligence
    • Data mart outsourcing
    • Data warehousing
    • MOLAP
    • Predictive modeling and advanced analytics
  • Application areas
    • Games and virtual worlds
    • Health care
    • Investment research and trading
    • Log analysis
    • Scientific research
    • Telecommunications
    • Web analytics
  • Buying processes
    • Benchmarks and POCs
  • Companies and products
    • 1010data
    • Ab Initio Software
    • Actian and Ingres
    • Aerospike
    • Akiban
    • Aleri and Coral8
    • Algebraix
    • Alpha Five
    • Amazon and its cloud
    • ANTs Software
    • Aster Data
    • Ayasdi
    • Basho and Riak
    • Business Objects
    • Calpont
    • Cassandra
    • Cast Iron Systems
    • Cirro
    • Citus Data
    • ClearStory Data
    • Cloudant
    • Cloudera
    • Clustrix
    • Cogito and 7 Degrees
    • Cognos
    • Continuent
    • Couchbase
    • CouchDB
    • Databricks, Spark and BDAS
    • DATAllegro
    • Datameer
    • DataStax
    • Dataupia
    • dbShards and CodeFutures
    • Elastra
    • EMC
    • Endeca
    • EnterpriseDB and Postgres Plus
    • Exasol
    • Expressor
    • FileMaker
    • GenieDB
    • Gooddata
    • Google
    • Greenplum
    • Groovy Corporation
    • Hadapt
    • Hadoop
    • HBase
    • Hortonworks
    • HP and Neoview
    • IBM and DB2
      • pureXML
    • illuminate Solutions
    • Infobright
    • Informatica
    • Information Builders
    • Inforsense
    • Intel
    • Intersystems and Cache'
    • Jaspersoft
    • Kafka and Confluent
    • Kalido
    • Kaminario
    • Kickfire
    • Kognitio
    • KXEN
    • MapR
    • MarkLogic
    • McObject
    • memcached
    • MemSQL
    • Metamarkets and Druid
    • Microsoft and SQL*Server
    • MicroStrategy
    • MonetDB
    • MongoDB
    • MySQL
    • Neo Technology and Neo4j
    • Netezza
    • NuoDB
    • Nutonian
    • Objectivity and Infinite Graph
    • Oracle
      • Exadata
    • Oracle TimesTen
    • ParAccel
    • Pentaho
    • Pervasive Software
    • PivotLink
    • Platfora
    • PostgreSQL
    • Progress, Apama, and DataDirect
    • QlikTech and QlikView
    • Rainstor
    • Revolution Analytics
    • Rocana
    • salesforce.com
    • SAND Technology
    • SAP AG
    • SAS Institute
    • ScaleBase
    • ScaleDB
    • Schooner Information Technology
    • SciDB
    • SenSage
    • SequoiaDB
    • SnapLogic
    • Software AG
    • solidDB
    • Splunk
    • Starcounter
    • StreamBase
    • Sybase
    • Syncsort
    • Tableau Software
    • Talend
    • Teradata
    • Tokutek and TokuDB
    • Truviso
    • VectorWise
    • Vertica Systems
    • VoltDB and H-Store
    • WibiData
    • Workday
    • Xkoto
    • XtremeData
    • Yarcdata and Cray
    • Zettaset
    • Zoomdata
  • Data integration and middleware
    • Application servers
    • EAI, EII, ETL, ELT, ETLT
  • Data types
    • GIS and geospatial
    • Object
    • RDF and graphs
    • Structured documents
    • Text
  • DBMS product categories
    • Archiving and information preservation
    • Data warehouse appliances
    • Mid-range
    • NewSQL
    • OLTP
    • Open source
  • Emulation, transparency, portability
  • Fun stuff
    • Humor
  • Market share and customer counts
  • Memory-centric data management
    • Cache
    • In-memory DBMS
    • Streaming and complex event processing (CEP)
  • Michael Stonebraker
  • Parallelization
    • Clustering
    • MapReduce
    • Transparent sharding
  • Presentations
  • Pricing
  • Public policy
    • Surveillance and privacy
  • Software as a Service (SaaS)
    • Cloud computing
  • Specific users
    • eBay
    • Facebook
    • Fox and MySpace
    • JPMorgan Chase
    • TEOCO
    • Yahoo
    • Zynga
  • Storage
    • Solid-state memory
  • Theory and architecture
    • Columnar database management
    • Data models and architecture
    • Data pipelining
    • Database compression
    • Database diversity
    • Derived data
    • NoSQL
    • Petabyte-scale data management
    • Schema on need
    • SQL/Hadoop integration
    • Workload management
  • TransRelational
  • Uncategorized

• Date archives

  Select Month June 2019 June 2018 May 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 August 2017 June 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005

• Links

  • Monash Research
  • White Papers

• Admin

  • Log in

• Home
• About
• Contact
• Feeds