QlikTech and QlikView
Analysis of QlikTech (now called Qlik Technologies), vendor of the memory-centric QlikView business intelligence products. Related subjects include:
Relational DBMS used to be fairly straightforward product suites, which boiled down to:
- A big SQL interpreter.
- A bunch of administrative and operational tools.
- Some very optional add-ons, often including an application development tool.
Now, however, most RDBMS are sold as part of something bigger.
- Oracle has hugely thickened its stack, as part of an Innovator’s Solution strategy — hardware, middleware, applications, business intelligence, and more.
- IBM has moved aggressively to a bundled “appliance” strategy. Even before that, IBM DB2 long sold much better to committed IBM accounts than as a software-only offering.
- Microsoft SQL Server is part of a stack, starting with the Windows operating system.
- Sybase was an exception to this rule, with thin(ner) stacks for both Adaptive Server Enterprise and Sybase IQ. But Sybase is now owned by SAP, and increasingly integrated as a business with …
- … SAP HANA, which is closely associated with SAP’s applications.
- Teradata has always been a hardware/software vendor. The most successful of its analytic DBMS rivals, in some order, are:
- Netezza, a pure appliance vendor, now part of IBM.
- Greenplum, an appliance-mainly vendor for most (not all) of its existence, and in particular now as a part of EMC Pivotal.
- Vertica, more of a software-only vendor than the others, but now owned by and increasingly mainstreamed into hardware vendor HP.
- MySQL’s glory years were as part of the “LAMP” stack.
- Various thin-stack RDBMS that once were or could have been important market players … aren’t. Examples include Progress OpenEdge, IBM Informix, and the various strays adopted by Actian.
As is the case for most important categories of technology, discussions of BI can get confused. I’ve remarked in the past that there are numerous kinds of BI, and that the very origin of the term “business intelligence” can’t even be pinned down to the nearest century. But the most fundamental confusion of all is that business intelligence technology really is two different things, which in simplest terms may be categorized as user interface (UI) and platform* technology. And so:
- The UI aspect is why BI tends to be sold to business departments; the platform aspect is why it also makes sense to sell BI to IT shops attempting to establish enterprise standards.
- The UI aspect is why it makes sense to sell and market BI much as one would applications; the platform aspect is why it makes sense to sell and market BI much as one would database technology.
- The UI aspect is why vendors want to integrate BI with transaction-processing applications; the platform aspect is, I suppose, why they have so much trouble making the integration work.
- The UI aspect is why BI is judged on … well, on snazzy UIs and demos. The platform aspect is a big reason why the snazziest UI doesn’t always win.
*I wanted to say “server” or “server-side” instead of “platform”, as I dislike the latter word. But it’s too inaccurate, for example in the case of the original Cognos PowerPlay, and also in various thin-client scenarios.
Key aspects of BI platform technology can include:
- Query and data management. That’s the area I most commonly write about, for example in the cases of Platfora, QlikView, or Metamarkets. It goes back to the 1990s — notably the Business Objects semantic layer and Cognos PowerPlay MOLAP (MultiDimensional OnLine Analytic Processing) engine — and indeed before that to the report writers and fourth-generation languages of the 1970s. This overlaps somewhat with …
- … data integration and metadata management. Business Objects, Qlik, and other BI vendors have bought data integration vendors. Arguably, there was a period when Information Builders’ main business was data connectivity and integration. And sometimes the main value proposition for a BI deal is “We need some way to get at all that data and bring it together.”
- Security and access control – authentication, authorization, and all the additional As.
- Scheduling and delivery. When 10s of 1000s of desktops are being served, these aren’t entirely trivial. Ditto when dealing with occasionally-connected mobile devices.
|Categories: Business intelligence, Business Objects, ClearStory Data, Cognos, Data warehousing, Endeca, Information Builders, Metamarkets and Druid, MOLAP, Platfora, Predictive modeling and advanced analytics, QlikTech and QlikView||11 Comments|
I lampoon the word “disruptive” for being badly overused. On the other hand, I often refer to the concept myself. Perhaps I should clarify.
- Market leaders serve high-end customers with complex, high-end products and services, often distributed through a costly sales channel.
- Upstarts serve a different market segment, often cheaply and/or simply, perhaps with a different business model (e.g. a different sales channel).
- Upstarts expand their offerings, and eventually attack the leaders in their core markets.
In response (this is the Innovator’s Solution part):
- Leaders expand their product lines, increasing the value of their offerings in their core markets.
- In particular, leaders expand into adjacent market segments, capturing margins and value even if their historical core businesses are commoditized.
- Leaders may also diversify into direct competition with the upstarts, but that generally works only if it’s via a separate division, perhaps acquired, that has permission to compete hard with the main business.
But not all cleverness is “disruption”.
- Routine product advancement by leaders — even when it’s admirably clever — is “sustaining” innovation, as opposed to the disruptive stuff.
- Innovative new technology from small companies is not, in itself, disruption either.
Here are some of the examples that make me think of the whole subject. Read more
|Categories: Business intelligence, Data warehousing, Hadoop, Microsoft and SQL*Server, MongoDB and 10gen, MySQL, Netezza, NewSQL, NoSQL, Oracle, Predictive modeling and advanced analytics, QlikTech and QlikView, Tableau Software||13 Comments|
If I had my way, the business intelligence part of investigative analytics — i.e. , the class of business intelligence tools exemplified by QlikView and Tableau — would continue to be called “data exploration”. Exploration what’s actually going on, and it also carries connotations of the “fun” that users report having with the products. By way of contrast, I don’t know what “data discovery” means; the problem these tools solve is that the data has been insufficiently explored, not that it hasn’t been discovered at all. Still “data discovery” seems to be the term that’s winning.
Confusingly, the Teradata Aster library of functions is now called “Discovery” as well, although thankfully without the “data” modifier. Further marketing uses of the term “discovery” will surely follow.
Enough terminology. What sets exploration/discovery business intelligence tools apart? I think these products have two essential kinds of feature:
- Query modification.
- Query result revisualization.*
|Categories: Business intelligence, Endeca, Memory-centric data management, QlikTech and QlikView, Tableau Software||8 Comments|
The cardinal rules of DBMS development
Rule 1: Developing a good DBMS requires 5-7 years and tens of millions of dollars.
That’s if things go extremely well.
Rule 2: You aren’t an exception to Rule 1.
- Concurrent workloads benchmarked in the lab are poor predictors of concurrent performance in real life.
- Mixed workload management is harder than you’re assuming it is.
- Those minor edge cases in which your Version 1 product works poorly aren’t minor after all.
DBMS with Hadoop underpinnings …
… aren’t exceptions to the cardinal rules of DBMS development. That applies to Impala (Cloudera), Stinger (Hortonworks), and Hadapt, among others. Fortunately, the relevant vendors seem to be well aware of this fact. Read more
A number of people and companies are using the term “iterative analytics”. This is confusing, because it can mean at least three different things:
- You analyze something quickly, decide the result is not wholly satisfactory, and try again. Examples might include:
- Aggressive use of drilldown, perhaps via an advanced-interface business intelligence tool such as Tableau or QlikView.
- Any case where you run a query or a model, think about the results, and run another one after that.
- You develop an intermediate analytic result, and using it as input to the next round of analysis. This is roughly equivalent to saying that iterative analytics refers to a multi-step analytic process involving a lot of derived data.
- #1 and #2 conflated/combined. This is roughly equivalent to saying that iterative analytics refers to all of to investigative analytics, sometimes known instead as exploratory analytics.
Based both on my personal conversations and a quick Google check, it’s reasonable to say #1 and #3 seem to be the most common usages, with #2 trailing a little bit behind.
But often it’s hard to be sure which of the various possible meanings somebody has in mind.
Monash’s First and Third Laws of Commercial Semantics state:
|Categories: Analytic technologies, Business intelligence, QlikTech and QlikView, Tableau Software||3 Comments|
QlikTech has bought Expressor. Notes on that include:
- Expressor wanted to offer data integration/ETL (Extract/Transform/Load) that was all things to all people — great parallel performance, great UI, great price, etc.
- In practice, Expressor seemed to focus on cheap/easy ETL in the Microsoft Windows (I mean server) market.
- Expressor never got much traction. This seems confirmed by the “more than 20″ figure for headcount mentioned in the acquisition press release.
- Both the press release and some tweets by QlikTech’s Donald Farmer seem to confirm that Expressor is being taken off the market for “boil the ocean” ETL. It will be companion technology to/integrated technology in QlikView.
- Unsurprisingly, Donald indicated that Expressor technology would expand past its Microsoft focus. (Edit: “If needed”)
|Categories: Business intelligence, EAI, EII, ETL, ELT, ETLT, Expressor, Pricing, QlikTech and QlikView||5 Comments|
This post is part of a series on managing and analyzing graph data. Posts to date include:
- Graph data model basics
- Relationship analytics definition (this post)
- Relationship analytics applications
- Analysis of large graphs
In late 2005, I encountered a company called Cogito that was using a graphical data manager to analyze relationships. They called this “relational analytics”, which I thought was a terrible name for something that they were trying to claim should NOT be done in a relational DBMS. On the spot, I coined relationship analytics as an alternative. A business relationship ensued, which included a short white paper. Cogito didn’t do so well, however, and for a while the term “relationship analytics” faltered too. But recently it’s made a bit of a comeback, having been adopted by Objectivity, Qlik Tech, Yarcdata and others.
“Relationship analytics” is not a perfect name, both because it’s longish and because it might over-connote a social-network focus. But then, no other term would be perfect either. So we might as well stick with it.
In that case, “relationship analytics” could use an actual definition, preferably one a little heftier than just:
Analytics on graphs.
|Categories: Cogito and 7 Degrees, Objectivity and Infinite Graph, QlikTech and QlikView, RDF and graphs, Yarcdata and Cray||7 Comments|
I’m frequently asked to generalize in some way about in-memory or memory-centric data management. I can start:
- The desire for human real-time interactive response naturally leads to keeping data in RAM.
- Many databases will be ever cheaper to put into RAM over time, thanks to Moore’s Law. (Most) traditional databases will eventually wind up in RAM.
- However, there will be exceptions, mainly on the machine-generated side. Where data creation and RAM data storage are getting cheaper at similar rates … well, the overall cost of RAM storage may not significantly decline.
Getting more specific than that is hard, however, because:
- The possibilities for in-memory data storage are as numerous and varied as those for disk.
- The individual technologies and products for in-memory storage are much less mature than those for disk.
- Solid-state options such as flash just confuse things further.
Consider, for example, some of the in-memory data management ideas kicking around. Read more
The 2011/2012 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Business Intelligence Platforms — company-by-company comments
This is one of a series of posts on business intelligence and related analytic technology subjects, keying off the 2011/2012 version of the Gartner Magic Quadrant for Business Intelligence Platforms. The four posts in the series cover:
- Overview comments about the 2011/2012 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Business Intelligence Platforms, as well as a link to the actual document.
- Business intelligence industry trends — some of Gartner’s thoughts but mainly my own.
- (This post) Company-by-company comments based on the 2011/2012 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Business Intelligence Platforms.
- Third-party analytics, pulling together and expanding on some points I made in the first three posts.
The heart of Gartner Group’s 2011/2012 Magic Quadrant for Business Intelligence Platforms was the company comments. I shall expound upon some, roughly in declining order of Gartner’s “Completeness of Vision” scores, dubious though those rankings may be. Read more
|Categories: Business intelligence, Business Objects, Cognos, IBM and DB2, Information Builders, Jaspersoft, MicroStrategy, Open source, Oracle, Pentaho, QlikTech and QlikView, SAP AG, SAS Institute, Tableau Software||5 Comments|