Infobright update

In connection with the announcements that:

• Infobright is open sourcing its analytical DBMS product (which is a really good idea)
• Infobright raised a $10 million VC round, with Sun as a new investor

I got my first real Infobright update since January. Highlights included:

Read more

Infobright’s open source move has a lot of potential

Infobright announced today that it’s going full-bore into open source – specifically in the MySQL ecosystem — with the licensing approach, pricing, distribution strategy, and VC money from Sun that such a move naturally entails. I think this is a great idea, for a number of reasons: Read more

Infobright goes open source — sound bites

As has recently become my custom when there is industry news, I herewith provide quotable sound bites about Infobright and its move to an open source strategy. Weather permitting, I’ll be on a plane to the Netezza conference this afternoon. And I’ve only slept about 10 hours since Thursday. So I hope these suffice, although if they don’t and you email me I’ll try to respond by some time Tuesday morning.

• For almost anybody in the MySQL world who needs high-performance analytics, Infobright is the first good solution.
• Infobright’s product strengths and use cases are a great match for open source.
• Most leading analytic DBMS have open source roots, but they generally haven’t been open sourced themselves. Infobright immediately becomes one of the premier open source analytic database offerings. The only serious open source rival that’s coming to mind is MonetDB.
• Storage engines are MySQL’s achilles heel. Each good MySQL storage engine is precious.
• Infobright has enough production references to show that it can get the job done for many data mart uses. It won’t meet everybody’s needs, but it’s well worth an experimental download.
• If you want to build a little data mart and run it yourself, most good products are too complicated or expensive. But in the right use cases, Infobright pretty much runs itself, and there’s no arguing with the Community Edition price (free).
• So Infobright is a great fit for the individual downloader – i.e., for the stereotypical open source user.
• Netezza, DATAllegro, Vertica, ParAccel, Greenplum, and Aster Data are all based in one way or another on PostgreSQL (even though Vertica includes no PostgreSQL code). DATAllegro was based on Ingres. Infobright and Kickfire are based on MySQL.
• If Infobright doesn’t get the job done, try downloading Vertica, which – while closed source – is also free for download and development.
• The “rough set” part of Infobright’s story is a lot of mumbo-jumbo, but the “knowledge grid” part is more real.
• When you compare Infobright to Teradata, Netezza, Greenplum, or even Vertica, it’s kind of a toy. But when you compare it to generic MySQL, it’s more like rocket science.
• Infobright was too little, too late in the mainstream analytic DBMS market. They had to do something different. Kudos to them for recognizing that.
• The Infobright product has some serious limitations. If you want a market that’s willing to adopt a DBMS with serious limitations, the MySQL world is the place for you.

Posts today on open source DBMS

• Infobright’s smart move to open source
• General Infobright update
• Infobright sound bites
• The many faces of open source DBMS

Introduction to Jaspersoft – the actual business

There were so many numbers in my introductory call with Jaspersoft that I’ve split them out in a separate post. With that out of the way, here’s what’s really going on, per Nick Halsey.

The Jaspersoft Business Intelligence Suite is BI technology designed to be integrated with operational apps. Thus, Jaspersoft says that operational BI is the core of its business. In particular:

Read more

Jaspersoft numbers

I chatted Friday with marketing VP Nick Halsey of Jaspersoft, which is probably the most successful open source business intelligence company. (That’s based just anecdotally, on mentions. I’d put Pentaho #2, with Talend commonly getting mentioned along with the two BI vendors for its ETL.) I’ll go straight to the numbers, per Nick, before talking in a separate post about what Jaspersoft actually sells.

Read more

EnterpriseDB update

I had lunch today with CTO Bob Zurek of EnterpriseDB, who turns out to live in almost the same town I do (they technically separated in 1783, but share a high school today). DBMS-related highlights included:

• EnterpriseDB thinks PostgreSQL training and certification are a big deal for increasing PostgreSQL adoption.
• EnterpriseDB’s business focus right now (at least, one of them) is moving developers from interest to download to deployment and payment — i.e., the standard funnel for open source and open-source-inspired products.
• EnterpriseDB finds it important to be a good PostgreSQL community citizen. This makes a lot of sense, as EnterpriseDB doesn’t control the core PostgreSQL engine, even if it does employ some of the core PostgreSQL developers.
• But “open source” is not the same as “free”.
• I got the impression that the GridSQL technology EnterpriseDB acquired is being used to go after general read-mostly, horizontally-scaling applications (i.e., MySQL’s sweet spot). I did not get the impression, by way of contrast, that EnterpriseDB is out to play catch-up — e.g., with GreenPlum — in MPP data warehousing.
• Bob pointed out that something like “Vacuum” to clean up the database periodically is needed in a MVCC (MultiVersion Concurrency Control) engine. He thinks PostgreSQL’s autovacuum is good but not ideal.
• Bob draws this as yet another two-dimensional positioning graph, but in essence he thinks PostgreSQL and Postgres Plus are well-suited for a large space that’s above MySQL and below Oracle. I don’t think he really contradicted Kee Kwan’s opinion that there are good times to use PostgreSQL and good times to use MySQL.
• I was wrong when I previously said EnterpriseDB now offers MySQL portability. It just offers MySQL migration.
• The Elastra/EnterpriseDB cloud offering isn’t generally available yet.
• Stay tuned for developments in replication/high availability.

Read more

Pushback on the PostgreSQL vs. MySQL comparison

It should come as no surprise that not everybody agrees with EnterpriseDB’s views on the PostgreSQL/MySQL comparison. In particular, the High Availability MySQL blog offers a detailed rebuttal post, with more in the comment thread. According to MySQL fans, EnterpriseDB got its facts wrong on several matters regarding MySQL and InnoDB, especially in the areas of triggers and locking. And of course they disagree with EnterpriseDB’s general conclusion.

How is MySQL’s join performance these days?

In a comment thread on a recent post comparing MySQL to Postgres, Jonathon Moore chimed in based on experience with both products. His characterization of some MySQL problems: Read more

PostgreSQL vs. MySQL, as per EnterpriseDB

EnterpriseDB put out a white paper arguing for the superiority of PostgreSQL over MySQL, even without EnterpriseDB’s own Postgres Plus extensions. Highlights of EnterpriseDB’s opinion include:

• EnterpriseDB asserts that MyISAM is the only MySQL storage engine with decent performance.
• EnterpriseDB then bashes MyISAM for all sorts of well-deserved reasons, especially ACID-noncompliance.
• EnterpriseDB asserts that row-level triggers, lacking in MySQL but present in PostgreSQL, are the most important kind of trigger.
• EnterpriseDB claims PostgreSQL is superior in procedural language support to MySQL.
• EnterpriseDB claims PostgreSQL is superior in authentication support to MySQL.

Read more

Open source in-memory DBMS

I’ve gotten email about two different open source in-memory DBMS products/projects. I don’t know much about either, but in case you care, here are some pointers to more info.

First, the McObject guys — who also sell a relational in-memory product — have an object-oriented, apparently Java-centric product called Perst. They’ve sent over various press releases about same, the details of which didn’t make much of an impression on me. (Upon review, I see that one of the main improvements they cite in Perst 3.0 is that they added 38 pages of documentation.)

Second, I just got email about something called CSQL Cache. You can read more about CSQL Cache here, if you’re willing to navigate some fractured English. CSQL’s SourceForge page is here. My impression is that CSQL Cache is an in-memory DBMS focused on, you guessed it, caching. It definitely seems to talk SQL, but possibly its native data model is of some other kind (there are references both to “file-based” and “network”.)

EnterpriseDB survey on open source database adoption (participation time)

CTO Bob Zurek of EnterpriseDB asked me to pass along a link to a short survey on open source database adoption. He plans to release the results publicly after they are collected. Bob stressed to me that he used to be a Forrester analyst, his point being that he knows how to be analytically objective.

Looking over the 15 questions (14 of which are simple multiple-choice), he lived up quite well to the “unbiased” claim. E.g., the only Postgres option cited is PostgreSQL, rather than EnterpriseDB’s proprietary/value-added packagings. I do see one little screw-up: Several of the questions are worded as if the respondent is, enterprise-wide, running one and exactly one instance of open source DBMS. But otherwise it seems like a clean, tight, simple survey.

Database blades are not what they used to be

In which we bring you another instantiation of Monash’s First Law of Commercial Semantics: Bad jargon drives out good.

When Enterprise DB announced a partnership with Truviso for a “blade,” I naturally assumed they were using the term in a more-or-less standard way, and hence believed that it was more than a “Barney” press release.* Silly me. Rather than referring to something closely akin to “datablade,” EnterpriseDB’s “blade” program turns out to just to be a catchall set of partnerships.

*A “Barney” announcement is one whose entire content boils down to “I love you; you love me.”

According to EnterpriseDB CTO Bob Zurek, the main features of the “blade” program include:

Read more

Truviso and EnterpriseDB blend event processing with ordinary database management

Truviso and EnterpriseDB announced today that there’s a Truviso “blade” for Postgres Plus. By email, EnterpriseDB Bob Zurek endorsed my tentative summary of what this means technically, namely:

• There’s data being managed transactionally by EnterpriseDB.

• Truviso’s DML has all along included ways to talk to a persistent Postgres data store.

• If, in addition, one wants to do stream processing things on the same data, that’s now possible, using Truviso’s usual DML.

Read more

Kickfire kicks off

I chatted with Raj Cherabuddi and others on the Kickfire (formerly C2) team for over an hour on Monday, and now have a better sense of their story. There are some very basic questions I still don’t have answers to; I’ll fill those in when I can.

Highlights of what I have and haven’t figured out so far include:

• Kickfire’s technology has two main parts: A SQL co-processor chip and a MySQL storage engine.

• Kickfire makes a Type 0 appliance. If I understood correctly, it contains the chip, a couple of standard CPU cores, and 64 gigs of RAM. Or else it contains just the chip, and is meant to be hooked up to a 2U box with 64 gigs of RAM. I’m confused.

• The Kickfire box can handle up to 3 terabytes of user data. The disk required for that is 4-5 terabytes without redundancy, 2X with. Based on that formulation and other clues, I’m guessing Kickfire — unlike other appliance vendors — doesn’t build in storage itself.

• I don’t know whether the Kickfire chip is true custom silicon or an FPGA emulation.

• The essential idea of the chip is dataflow programming for SQL, with pipelining between operations. This eliminates the overhead of registers and context switching. I don’t know what the trade-offs are, if any.

• Kickfire’s database software is columnar, operating on compressed data even in RAM. In that, Kickfire’s story is most similar to Vertica’s, although I’m guessing Exasol may do something similar as well. Like Vertica, Kickfire uses multiple compression methods (they’re reluctant to give detail, but agreed it would be fair to say they use both something like dictionary/token and something like delta compression).

• Kickfire’s software is ACID-compliant. You can do incremental loads or trickle feeds. Bulk load speed is 100 Gb/hour. Kickfire’s solution for the traditional problem of updating column stores is called “snapshots.” Without giving details, they position that as similar to the Vertica solution.

• Like other MySQL storage engines, Kickfire inherits whatever data connectivity, stored procedure capabilities, user-defined functions ability, etc. that MySQL has.

• Kickfire has no paying customers, but does have a slide showing many logos of “prospects and beta customers.”

• Kickfire has no MPP capabilities at this time, but says adding those is “on the roadmap” and will be “easy.”

• Kickfire submitted a 100 Gb TPC-H result, in which it beat the previous leaders — Exasol, ParAccel, and Microsoft – on price-performance, and lagged only Exasol and ParAccel on absolute performance. Kickfire is extremely proud of this. Indeed, I don’t recall another vendor ascribing that much weight to them in the entire history of TPCs.* Kickfire seems unfazed by the fact that its result is for a system listed with a ship date 6 months in the future (I’m guessing that’s the latest the TPC will allow), while the other results are for systems available today.

*Somebody – perhaps adman extraordinaire Rick Bennett? — may want to check my memory on this, but I think Oracle’s famed “Gentlemen, start your snails” ad in the early 1990s was about PC World tests, not TPCs. Oracle also had an ad about WW1-style planes nosediving, but I don’t think those referenced TPCs either.

ScaleDB presents The Revenge of the Pointer

The MySQL user conference is upon us, and hence so are MySQL-related product announcements, including storage engines. One such is Kickfire. ScaleDB — smaller and earlier-stage — is another.

In a nutshell, ScaleDB’s proposition is:

• Innovative approach to indexing relational DBMS, providing performance advantages.

• Shared-everything scale-up that ScaleDB believes will leapfrog the MySQL engine competition already in Release 1. (In my opinion, this is the least plausible part of the ScaleDB story.)

• State-of-the-art me-too facilities for locking, logging, replication/fail-over, etc., also already in Release 1.

Like many software companies with non-US roots, ScaleDB seems to have started with a single custom project, using a Patricia trie indexing system. Then they decided Patricia tries might be really useful for relational OLTP as well. The ScaleDB team now features four developers, plus half-time or so “Chief Architect” involvement from Vern Watts. Watts seems to pretty much have been Mr. IMS for the past four decades, and thus surely knows a whole lot about pointer-based database management systems; presumably, he’s responsible for the generic DBMS design features that are being added to the innovative indexing scheme. On ScaleDB’s advisory board is PeopleSoft veteran Rick Berquist, about whom I’ve had fond thoughts ever since he talked me into focusing on consulting as the core of my business.*

*More precisely, Rick pretty much tricked me into doing a day of consulting for $15K, then revealed that’s what he’d done, expressing the thought that he’d very much gotten his money’s worth. But I digress …

ScaleDB has no customers to date, but hopes to be in beta by the end of this year. Angels and a small VC firm have provided bridge loans; otherwise, ScaleDB has no outside investment. ScaleDB’s business model thoughts include:

Read more

Supporting evidence for the DBMS disruption story

As previously announced, I did a webcast this afternoon, discussing database diversity. The title of the talk was taken directly from a post – What leading DBMS vendors don’t want you to realize — that argued mid-range DBMS are suitable for a broad variety of tasks. The overriding theme was a Clayton Christensen-style “disruption” narrative.

The sponsor was EnterpriseDB, which is fitting. While not the biggest DBMS industry disrupter in terms of revenue or visible impact (MySQL and Netezza say “Hi”), the Postgres family in general and EnterpriseDB in particular epitomize the disruption threat like nobody else, because of how broadly they substitute for market-leading database managers.

As I promised on the call, below is a post with links to further research backing up the points made. They’re numbered to match some of the presentation slides, which you can find at this link.

3. Much of the discussion of database diversity comes from a series of posts I coordinated with Mike Stonebraker.

4. At various times, starting on Slide 4, I made reference to datatype extensibility, a key feature of Oracle and DB2 – and a key advantage of Postgres over MySQL.

10. Capping off the database diversity discussion, Slide 10 mirrors this 11-point version of a data management software taxonomy.

13-14. I’ve posted many times about data warehousing DBMS and related technologies, including this overview of major analytic DBMS products, another recent overview of data warehouse specialty technologies, and an attempt to distinguish between data warehouse appliance myths and realities. Of particular interest for further research may be our sections on data warehouse appliances and columnar DBMS.

15. I do most of my posting about text search over on Text Technologies, specifically in the search category. Vendors I specifically mentioned as blending search with other kinds of data retrieval were Mark Logic and Attivio.

16. There’s a section here on native XML database management.

17. We also have a section on managing RDF and other graphical data models.

18. Ditto complex event/stream processing.

19. The only embeddable DBMS I’ve written much about recently is solidDB. And frankly, even in that case I’ve focused more on mid-tier caching uses, the now-canceled MySQL relationship, or general technology than I did specifically on embedded uses.

22-24. Back in February, 2007 I made what is probably still my clearest post explaining why I think market-leading DBMS vendors are in the process of getting disrupted

Disruption versus chasm crossing in the database market

The 451 Group just released a report on open source DBMS adoption. In a blog post announcing same, Matthew Aslett wrote (emphasis mine):

you only have to look at the comparative revenues of the open source and proprietary vendors to see that there is a vast chasm to be crossed.

“Chasm” memes were introduced by Geoffrey Moore, founder of the Chasm Group and author of Crossing the Chasm. His defining example was Oracle, and the database market in general. The core insight was that platform markets get to tipping points, after which the leaders have tremendous advantages that make them tend to remain leaders for a good long time.

The sequel to “chasm” theory is Clayton Christensen’s “disruption” rubric, popularized in The Innovator’s Dilemma. I’ve argued previously that the DBMS market is being disrupted, in both the ways that Christensen records: Read more

GridSQL: What EnterpriseDB is and is not doing in Postgres-based MPP data warehousing

While talking with EnterpriseDB about today’s Postgres Plus announcements, I took the chance to clear up a point of confusion. Somebody told Seth Grimes that EnterpriseDB is out to compete with Greenplum, but that person was wrong. EnterpriseDB fondly hopes to manage multi-terabyte data warehouses, just as Oracle and Microsoft do with their respective general-purpose DBMS. However, EnterpriseDB is not going after the 10s-100s of terabytes sized DBMS that are the province of specialists such as Greenplum, Teradata, Netezza, or columnar DBMS vendors.

Even so, in GridSQL EnterpriseDB does seem to be open-sourcing MPP shared-nothing basics. There’s a lightweight optimizer that does a little (but only a little) more to minimize data movement beyond just optimizing queries on each node. And GridSQL knows how to replicate small tables across each node, a key aspect of many MPP designs. (Partition your facts; replicate your dimensions.)

EnterpriseDB unveils Postgres Plus

EnterpriseDB is making a series of moves and announcements. Highlights include:

• Renaming/repositioning the product as “Postgres Plus.” The free product is now Postgres Plus, while the version you pay EnterpriseDB for is now Postgres Plus Advanced Server.
• Repackaging the products, so that Postgres Plus Advanced Server is a strict superset of Postgres Plus.
• New features added to Postgres Plus Advanced Server.
• Features newly migrated from Advanced Server down to Postgres Plus.
• A strategic investment by IBM.
• Stressing Postgres in EnterpriseDB marketing, and dropping the tag-line defining themselves as “the Oracle-compatible database company.”

So far as I can tell, most of the technical differences between Advanced Server and regular Postgres Plus lie in three areas: Read more

IBM discontinues the solidDB MySQL engine

Last year, I thought that solidDB could at least potentially be an outstanding MySQL engine. But as per news posted on SourceForge last week, that’s not going to happen. At least, it’s not going to happen via any development efforts from IBM.

PostgreSQL can be used in a lot of different ways

The relational DBMS industry is filled with startups. In some way or other, most of them are based on or make use of the open source project PostgreSQL. (Not all, of course; exceptions include DATAllegro and Infobright, which are based on Ingres and MySQL respectively.) But how they use PostgreSQL varies greatly. Read more

EnterpriseDB on Elastra, early stages

I finally caught up with Bob Zurek about EnterpriseDB’s foray into the Elastra cloud. Here are some highlights:

• There have been dozens of applicants for the EnterpriseDB/Elastra beta program. As is usual in limited beta programs, EnterpriseDB is trying to sort out the ones who’ll make a big commitment from the tire-kickers.
• The main interest in EnterpriseDB/Elastra has come from ISVs, and secondarily from purely online businesses (e.g., SaaS vendors, web businesses, and a large MMO game vendor). There’s been a little interest from enterprises.
• Significant fractions of the EnterpriseDB/Elastra beta applications come from each of the Oracle, PostgreSQL, and MySQL user communities. A few come from SQL Server. None come from DB2.
• Bob praised Elastra for its technology in clustering, starting/stopping instances, etc. He also said that EnterpriseDB had “educated” Elastra on EnterpriseDB internals and/or admin tools, to make the integration work.
• EnterpriseDB will start turning on a few beta Elastra customers any day now (i.e., it may well not take until March, the original target).

PostgreSQL speeds up OLTP

The Register reports on PostgreSQL 8.3, and emphasizes OLTP speedups and reductions in administrative burden:

Among the changes, Heap Only Tuples (HOT) that may cut the maintenance overhead of frequently updated tables by up to 75 per cent, spread checkpoints and background writer autotuning to reduce the impact of check points on response times, and an asynchronous commit option that also speeds the response times of certain transactions.

I wonder how EnterpriseDB compares on these features.

Edit: Slashdot has discussion and links. And here’s a PostgreSQL feature matrix.

EnterpriseDB joins Elastra in the Amazon cloud

When Elastra announced their service to host MySQL and PostgreSQL in the Amazon S3/EC2 cloud, I immediately told my dear darling clients at EnterpriseDB they should do the same. Whereupon they told me it would happen soon. However, they neglected to tell me when it was actually announced. So I know no more than can be found in this Computerworld article.

But I’ll say this — it’s a very tempting option, both for new web-based applications or businesses, or simply as a development platform pending later redeployment.

What hard-core transactional applications have actually been built in MySQL, PostgreSQL, EnterpriseDB, or FileMaker?

And here’s the biggie.

Question of the day #3

What complex, high-volume transactional applications have actually been built in mid-range DBMS such as MySQL, PostgreSQL, FileMaker, or EnterpriseDB?

I’ve been flamed for suggesting that MySQL or FileMaker aren’t fully equal to Oracle and DB2 in supporting hard-core transactional applications. (Which is ironic, because I’ve also been flamed for suggesting hard-core transactional support isn’t as big a deal for DBMS selection as some relational purists insist. But I digress …) So I’m putting the question out there — what impressive transactional applications do the stand-alone mid-range DBMS actually support? Read more

Next Page →

Subscribe to the Monash Research feed via RSS or email:

Login

Search our blogs and white papers

Monash Research blogs

• DBMS2 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.

Recent white paper

The Explosion in DBMS Choice August, 2008

Recent webcast

What leading database vendors don't want you to know Originally broadcast April 9, 2008

Monash Research highlights

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

 

• Recent posts

  • Interpreting the results of data warehouse proofs-of-concept (POCs)
  • MySQL Query Analyzer
  • Silly website tricks
  • Graphjam: I can haz BI
  • When people don’t want accurate predictions made about them

• Categories

  • About this blog
  • Analytic technologies
    • Business intelligence
    • Data mart outsourcing
    • Data warehousing
    • MOLAP
  • Application areas
    • Games and virtual worlds
    • Investment research and trading
    • Scientific research
    • Telecommunications
    • Web analytics
  • Companies and products
    • 1010data
    • Ab Initio Software
    • Alpha Five
    • Amazon and its cloud
    • ANTs Software
    • Aster Data
    • Business Objects
    • Calpont
    • Cast Iron Systems
    • Cogito and 7 Degrees
    • Cognos
    • Coral8
    • CouchDB
    • DATAllegro
    • Dataupia
    • Elastra
    • EMC
    • EnterpriseDB and Postgres Plus
    • Exasol
    • Facebook and Cassandra
    • FileMaker
    • Google
    • Greenplum
    • H-Store
    • HP and Neoview
    • IBM and DB2
      • pureXML
    • illuminate Solutions
    • Infobright
    • Informatica
    • Ingres
    • Intel
    • Intersystems and Cache'
    • Jaspersoft
    • Kalido
    • Kickfire
    • Kognitio
    • Mark Logic
    • McObject
    • Microsoft and SQL*Server
    • MySQL
    • Netezza
    • Oracle
      • Exadata
    • Oracle TimesTen
    • ParAccel
    • Pervasive Software
    • PostgreSQL
    • Progress, Apama, and DataDirect
    • QlikTech and QlikView
    • SAP AG
    • SAS Institute
    • ScaleDB
    • Software AG
    • solidDB
    • StreamBase
    • Sybase
    • Talend
    • Teradata
    • Truviso
    • Vertica Systems
  • Data integration and middleware
    • Application servers
    • EAI, EII, ETL, ELT, ETLT
  • Data types
    • GIS and geospatial
    • Native XML
    • Object
    • RDF and graphs
    • Text
  • DBMS product categories
    • Data warehouse appliances
    • Mid-range
    • OLTP
    • Open source
  • Emulation, transparency, portability
  • Fun stuff
    • Humor
  • Market share
  • Memory-centric data management
    • Cache
    • Complex event processing (CEP)
    • In-memory DBMS
  • Michael Stonebraker
  • Parallelization
    • MapReduce
  • Pricing
  • Software as a Service (SaaS)
    • Cloud computing
  • Specific users
    • eBay
    • TEOCO
    • Yahoo
  • Storage
    • Solid-state memory
  • Theory and architecture
    • Columnar database management
    • Data models and architecture
    • Database compression
    • Database diversity
  • TransRelational
  • Uncategorized

• Date archives

  Select Month November 2008  (10) October 2008  (29) September 2008  (60) August 2008  (28) July 2008  (23) June 2008  (7) May 2008  (16) April 2008  (18) March 2008  (22) February 2008  (25) January 2008  (35) December 2007  (18) November 2007  (12) October 2007  (31) September 2007  (16) August 2007  (11) July 2007  (9) June 2007  (16) May 2007  (6) April 2007  (18) March 2007  (17) February 2007  (8) January 2007  (13) December 2006  (1) November 2006  (1) October 2006  (7) September 2006  (17) August 2006  (6) July 2006  (12) June 2006  (1) May 2006  (7) April 2006  (7) March 2006  (2) February 2006  (4) January 2006  (13) December 2005  (9) November 2005  (9) October 2005