DBMS product categories
Analysis of database management technology in specific product categories. Related subjects include:
Cassandra and the NoSQL scalable OLTP argument
Todd Hoff put up a provocative post on High Scalability called MySQL and Memcached: End of an Era? The post itself focuses on observations like:
- Facebook invented and is adopting Cassandra.
- Twitter is adopting Cassandra.
- Digg is adopting Cassandra.
- LinkedIn invented and is adopting Voldemort.
- Gee, it seems as if the super-scalable website biz has moved beyond MySQL/Memcached.
But in addition, he provides a lot of useful links, which DBMS-oriented folks such as myself might have previously overlooked. Read more
| Categories: Cassandra, Data models and architecture, NoSQL, OLTP, Open source, Parallelization, Specific users, Theory and architecture | 9 Comments |
TwinFin(i) – Netezza’s version of a parallel analytic platform
Much like Aster Data did in Aster 4.0 and now Aster 4.5, Netezza is announcing a general parallel big data analytic platform strategy. It is called Netezza TwinFin(i), it is a chargeable option for the Netezza TwinFin appliance, and many announced details are on the vague side, with Netezza promising more clarity at or before its Enzee Universe conference in June. At a high level, the Aster and Netezza approaches compare/contrast as follows: Read more
| Categories: Analytic technologies, Aster Data, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Hadoop, MapReduce, Netezza, SAS Institute, Teradata | 2 Comments |
Quick thoughts on the StreamBase Component Exchange
Streambase is announcing something called the StreamBase Component Exchange, for developers to exchange components to be used with the StreamBase engine, presumably on an open source basis. I simultaneously think:
- This is a good idea, and many software vendors should do it if they aren’t already.
- It’s no big deal.
For reasons why, let me quote an email I just sent to an inquiring reporter:
- StreamBase sells mainly to the financial services and intelligence community markets. Neither group will share much in the way of core algorithms.
- But both groups are pretty interested in open source software even so. (I think for both the price and customizability benefits.)
- Open source software commonly gets community contributions for connectors, adapters, and (national) language translations.
- But useful contributions in other areas are much rarer.
- Linden Labs is one of StreamBase’s few significant customers outside its two core markets.
- All of the above are consistent with the press release (which quotes only one StreamBase customer — guess who?).
| Categories: Complex event processing (CEP), Games and virtual worlds, Investment research and trading, Open source, StreamBase | 5 Comments |
Intelligent Enterprise’s Editors’/Editor’s Choice list for 2010
As he has before, Intelligent Enterprise Editor Doug Henschen
- 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.”)
Comments on the Gartner 2009/2010 Data Warehouse Database Management System Magic Quadrant
At intervals of little over a year, Gartner Group publishes a Data Warehouse Database Management System Magic Quadrant. Gartner’s 2009 data warehouse DBMS Magic Quadrant — actually, January 2010 — is now out.* For many reasons, including those I noted in my comments on Gartner’s 2008 Data Warehouse DBMS Magic Quadrant, the Gartner quadrant pictures are a bad use of good research. Rather than rehash that this year, I’ll merely call out some points in the surrounding commentary that I find interesting or just plain strange. Read more
Netezza Skimmer
As I previously complained, last week wasn’t a very convenient time for me to have briefings. So when Netezza emailed to say it would release its new entry-level Skimmer appliance this morning, while I asked for and got a Friday afternoon briefing, I kept it quick and basic.
That said, highlights of my Netezza Skimmer briefing included:
- In essence, Netezza Skimmer is 1/3 of Netezza’s previously smallest appliance, for 1/3 the price.
- I.e., Netezza Skimmer has 1 S-blade and 9 disks, vs. 3 S-blades and 24 disks on the Netezza TwinFin 3.
- With 1 disk reserved as a hot spare, that boils down to a 1:1:1 ratio among CPU cores, FPGA cores, and 1-terabyte disks on Netezza skimmer. The same could pretty much be said of Netezza TwinFin, the occasional hot-spare disk notwithstanding.
- Netezza Skimmer costs $125K.
- With 2.8 or so TB of space for user data before compression, that’s right in line with the Netezza price point of slightly <$20K/terabyte of user data.
- That assumes Netezza’s usual 2.25X compression. I forgot to ask when 4X compression was actually being shipped.
- I forgot to ask, but it seems obvious that Netezza Skimmer uses identical or substantially similar components to Netezza TwinFin’s.
- Netezza Skimmer is 7 rack units high.
- In place of the SMP hosts on TwinFin Systems, Netezza Skimmer has a host blade.
- Netezza (specifically Phil Francisco) mentioned that when Kalido uses Netezza Skimmer for its appliance, there will be an additional host computer, but when it uses TwinFin for the same software, the built-in host will suffice. (Even so, I suspect it might be too strong to say that Skimmer’s built-in host computer is underpowered.)
- Netezza also suggested that more appliance OEMs are coming down the pike specifically focused on the affordable Skimmer.
| Categories: Data mart outsourcing, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Netezza, Pricing | 1 Comment |
Two cornerstones of Oracle’s database hardware strategy
After several months of careful optimization, Oracle managed to pick the most inconvenient* day possible for me to get an Exadata update from Juan Loaiza. But the call itself was long and fascinating, with the two main takeaways being:
- Oracle thinks flash memory is the most important hardware technology of the decade, one that could lead to Oracle being “bumped off” if they don’t get it right.
- Juan believes the “bulk” of Oracle’s business will move over to Exadata-like technology over the next 5-10 years. Numbers-wise, this seems to be based more on Exadata being a platform for consolidating an enterprise’s many Oracle databases than it is on Exadata running a few Especially Big Honking Database management tasks.
And by the way, Oracle doesn’t make its storage-tier software available to run on anything than Oracle-designed boxes. At the moment, that means Exadata Versions 1 and 2. Since Exadata is by far Oracle’s best DBMS offering (at least in theory), that means Oracle’s best database offering only runs on specific Oracle-sold hardware platforms. Read more
Intersystems Cache’ highlights
I talked with Robert Nagle of Intersystems last week, and it went better than at least one other Intersystems briefing I’ve had. Intersystems’ main product is Cache’, an object-oriented DBMS introduced in 1997 (before that Intersystems was focused on the fourth-generation programming language M, renamed from MUMPS). Unlike most other OODBMS, Cache’ is used for a lot of stuff one would think an RDBMS would be used for, across all sorts of industries. That said, there’s a distinct health-care focus to Intersystems, in that:
- MUMPS, the original Intersystems technology, was focused on health care.
- The reasons Intersystems went object-oriented have a lot to do with the structure of health-care records.
- Intersystems’ biggest and most visible ISVs are in the health-care area.
- Intersystems is actually beginning to sell an electronic health records system called TrakCare around the world (but not in the US, where it has lots of large competitive VARs).
Note: Intersystems Cache’ is sold mainly through VARs (Value-Added Resellers), aka ISVs/OEMs. I.e., it’s sold by people who write applications on top of it.
So far as I understand – and this is still pretty vague and apt to be partially erroneous – the Intersystems Cache’ technical story goes something like this: Read more
| Categories: Data models and architecture, Emulation, transparency, portability, Intersystems and Cache', Mid-range, OLTP, Object, Sybase, Theory and architecture | 2 Comments |
This and that
I have various subjects backed up that I don’t really want to write about at traditional blog-post length. Here are a few of them. Read more
| Categories: Analytic technologies, Columnar database management, Complex event processing (CEP), Mark Logic, Native XML, Open source, Oracle, Theory and architecture, Vertica Systems | 2 Comments |
Oracle lifts the cloud hanging over MySQL storage engine vendors
Oracle has put out a press release promising to play nicely with MySQL if its Sun takeover is approved. The parts in italics below are quotes. My comments are in plain text.
1. Continued Availability of Storage Engine APIs. Oracle shall maintain and periodically enhance MySQL’s Pluggable Storage Engine Architecture to allow users the flexibility to choose from a portfolio of native and third party supplied storage engines.
MySQL’s Pluggable Storage Engine Architecture shall mean MySQL’s current practice of using, publicly-available, documented application programming interfaces to allow storage engine vendors to “plug” into the MySQL database server. Documentation shall be consistent with the documentation currently provided by Sun.
Well, duh.
2. Non-assertion. As copyright holder, Oracle will change Sun’s current policy and shall not assert or threaten to assert against anyone that a third party vendor’s implementations of storage engines must be released under the GPL because they have implemented the application programming interfaces available as part of MySQL’s Pluggable Storage Engine Architecture.
A commercial license will not be required by Oracle from third party storage engine vendors in order to implement the application programming interfaces available as part of MySQL’s Pluggable Storage Engine Architecture.
Oracle shall reproduce this commitment in contractual commitments to storage vendors who at present have a commercial license with Sun.
This is the biggie, lifting a major cloud from the MySQL storage engine business. It sounds like the third of four options I suggested as to how Oracle could legitimately earn antitrust approval of its MySQL takeover. Sure, Infobright, Kickfire, et al. already had what they saw as adequate safeguards or contingency plans vs. Oracle skullduggery. It’s still big even so.
(Quoted out of order.) The geographic scope of these commitments shall be worldwide and these commitments shall continue until the fifth anniversary of the closing of the transaction.
Not a disaster, but with respect to at least point #2 there should be no time limit whatsoever. I’d like to see the EC require that change as a further Oracle concession.
| Categories: MySQL, Open source, Oracle, Pricing | 15 Comments |