April 10th, 2008 Curt Monash
On a recent webcast, I presented an 11-node data management software taxonomy, updating a post commenting on Mike Stonebraker’s. It goes:
1. High-end OLTP/general-purpose DBMS
2. Mid-range OLTP/general-purpose DBMS
3. Row-based analytic RDBMS
4. Column- or array-based analytic RDBMS
5. Text search engines
6. XML and OO DBMS (but these may merge with search)
7. RDF and other graphical DBMS (but these may merge with relational)
8. Event/stream processing engines (aka CEP)
9. Embedded DBMS for devices
10. Sub-DBMS file managers (e.g. MapReduce/Hadoop)
11. Science DBMS
Obviously, this is a work in progress. In particular, while there’s clearly more than one kind of analytic DBMS, partitioning them into categories is not easy.
Please subscribe to our feed!
Posted in Database diversity | 3 Comments »
April 2nd, 2008 Curt Monash
Once or twice a year, EnterpriseDB sponsors a webcast for me. The last two were super well-attended. And most people stayed to the end, which is generally an encouraging sign!
The emphasis this time is on alternatives to the market-leading DBMS. I’ll highlight the advantages of both data warehousing specialists and general-purpose mid-range DBMS (naturally focusing on the latter, given who the sponsor is). The provocative title is taken from a January, 2008 post — What leading DBMS vendors don’t want you to realize. If you read every word of this blog, there probably won’t be much new for you. 
But I’d love to have you listen in and perhaps ask a question anyway!
You can register on EnterpriseDB’s webcast page, which also has an archived webcast I did for them in October, 2007.
Posted in Database diversity, EnterpriseDB and Postgres Plus, Mid-range DBMS | No Comments »
February 19th, 2008 Curt Monash
I wrote yesterday about the H-Store project, the latest from the team of researchers who also brought us C-Store and its commercialization Vertica. H-Store is designed to drastically improve efficiency in OLTP database processing, in two ways. First, it puts everything in RAM. Second, it tries to gain an additional order of magnitude on in-memory performance versus today’s DBMS designs by, for example, taking a very different approach to ensuring ACID compliance.
Today I had the chance to talk with two more of the H-Store researchers, Sam Madden and Daniel Abadi.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Database diversity, H-Store, Memory-centric data management, OLTP database management | 1 Comment »
February 18th, 2008 Curt Monash
Last week, Dan Weinreb tipped me off to something very cool: Mike Stonebraker and a group of MIT/Brown/Yale colleagues are calling for a complete rewrite of OLTP DBMS. And they have a plan for how to do it, called H-Store, as per a paper and an associated slide presentation.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Database diversity, Database theory and practice, H-Store, Memory-centric data management, Michael Stonebraker, OLTP database management | 28 Comments »
February 16th, 2008 Curt Monash
In a response to my recent five-part series on DBMS diversity, Mike Stonebraker has proposed his own taxonomy of data management technologies over on Vertica’s Database Column blog.
- OLTP DBMSs focused on fast, reliable transaction processing
- Analytic/Data Warehouse DBMSs focused on efficient load and ad-hoc query performance
-
Science DBMSs — after all MatLab does not scale to disk-sized arrays
- RDF stores focused on efficiently storing semi-structured data in this format
-
XML stores focused on semi-structured data in this format
- Search engines — the big players all use proprietary engines in this area
- Stream Processing Engines focused on real-time StreamSQL
- “Lean and Mean,” less-than-a-database engines focused on doing a small number of things very well (embedded databases are probably in this category)
- MapReduce and Hadoop — after all Google has enough “throw weight” to define a category
He goes on to say that each will be architected differently, except that — as he already convinced me back in July — RDF will be well-managed by specialty data warehouse DBMS. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Data types, Database diversity, Database theory and practice, Michael Stonebraker, Mid-range DBMS, OLTP database management, RDF and graphs, Relational database management systems | No Comments »
February 15th, 2008 Curt Monash
This is the fifth of a five-part series on database management system choices. For the first post in the series, please click here.
Relational database management systems have three essential elements:
- Rows and columns. Theoretically, rows and columns may be inessential to the relational model. But in reality, they are built into the design of every real-world relational product. If you don’t have rows and columns, you’re not using the product to do what it was well-designed for.
- Predicate logic. Theoretically, everything can be fitted into a predicate Procrustean bed. But if you’re looking for relevancy rankings on a text search, binary logic is a highly convoluted way to get them.
- Fixed schemas. Database theorists commonly assume that databases have fixed schemas. If this means that 90%+ of all information is null or missing, they have elegant ways of dealing with that. Even so, as computing gets ever more concerned with individuals — each with his/her/its unique “profile(s)” — fixed schemas get ever harder to maintain.
If any of these three elements is missing or inappropriate, then a traditional relational database management system may not be the best choice.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Data types, Database diversity, Database theory and practice | 1 Comment »
February 15th, 2008 Curt Monash
This is the fourth of a five-part series on database management system choices. For the first post in the series, please click here.
The other threat to the high-end relational DBMS vendors aims squarely at the heart of their business. It’s the mid-range relational database management systems, which are doing an ever-larger fraction of what their high-end cousins can. That said, different products do different things well. So if you’re not blindly paying up for the security of an all-things-to-all-people high-end DBMS, there are a number of factors you might want to consider.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Database diversity, Database theory and practice, Mid-range DBMS, OLTP database management, Relational database management systems | 2 Comments »
February 15th, 2008 Curt Monash
This is the third of a five-part series on database management system choices. For the first post in the series, please click here.
High-end OLTP relational database management system vendors try to offer one-stop shopping for almost all data management needs. But as I noted in my prior post, their product category is facing two major competitive threats. One comes from specialty data warehouse database management system products. I’ve covered those extensively in this blog, with key takeaways including:
- Specialty data warehouse products offer huge cost advantages versus less targeted DBMS. This applies to purchase/maintenance and administrative costs alike. And it’s true even when the general-purposed DBMS boast data warehousing features such as star indexes, bitmap indexes, or sophisticated optimizers.
- The larger the database, the bigger the difference. It’s almost inconceivable to use Oracle for a 100+ terabyte data warehouse. But if you only have 5 terabytes, Oracle is a perfectly viable – albeit annoying and costly – alternative.
- Most specialty data warehouse products have a shared-nothing architecture. Smaller parts are cheaper per unit of capacity. Hence shared nothing/grid architectures are inherently cheaper, at least in theory. In data warehousing, that theoretical possibility has long been made practical.
- Specialty data warehouse products with row-based architectures are commonly sold in appliance formats. In particular, this is true of Teradata, Netezza, DATAllegro, and Greenplum. One reason is that they’re optimized to stream data off of disk fairly sequentially, as opposed to relying on random seeks.
- Specialty data warehouse products with columnar architectures are commonly available in software-only formats. Even so, Vertica and ParAccel also boast appliance deals, with HP and Sun respectively.
- There is tremendous technical diversity and differentiation in the specialty data warehouse system market.
Let me expand on that last point. Different features may or may not be important to you, depending on whether your precise application needs include:
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Analytics and analytic technologies, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Database diversity, Database theory and practice, Relational database management systems | 17 Comments »
February 15th, 2008 Curt Monash
This is the second of a five-part series on database management system choices. For the first post in the series, please click here.
For the most part, relational database management systems divide into four major classes:
- High-end OLTP (OnLine Transaction Processing) relational DBMS. Oracle is the flagship for this category, followed by DB2.
- Specialty data warehouse DBMS. Teradata is the leader here, followed by Netezza, DATAllegro, ParAccel, Vertica, Infobright, Greenplum, Kognitio, Sybase IQ, and a host of others.
- Mid-range relational database management systems. Most of the contenders here fall into one or more of three categories: Open-source-based relational DBMS (MySQL, PostgreSQL, EnterpriseDB); reseller-focused relational DBMS (Progress OpenEdge, Pervasive PSQL); or crippled “editions” of high-end systems. Microsoft SQL Server was once a clear mid-range system, but now is better classified as high-end OLTP.
- Embedded relational database management systems. The leader of this category is Sybase’s SQL Anywhere. Also significant are memory-centric products Oracle TimesTen and solidDB.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Database diversity, Database theory and practice, OLTP database management, Relational database management systems | 8 Comments »
February 15th, 2008 Curt Monash
This is the first in a 5-part series of posts on data management product choices. By pre-arrangement, Mike Stonebraker is responding on The Database Column, starting with his own taxonomy of DBMS types.
In the 1990s, most database management experts believed that a single general-purpose DBMS could meet substantially all needs. If you just kept adding in enough datatypes and data access methods (e.g., specialized indexes), your DBMS could eventually do a good job of meeting almost any requirement. And so, from the late 1990s into the beginning of this decade, it seemed that technology was supporting business trends, and the DBMS industry was inexorably consolidating. There was an oligopoly of high-end vendors, who sold increasingly similar super-sophisticated database management systems. Nothing else in database management seemed to matter.
Well, we were wrong. The big thing we overlooked is that database optimizations go down to the level of actual storage.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Database diversity, Database theory and practice | 9 Comments »
February 1st, 2008 Curt Monash
I’ve run into a research/alpha/whatever project called CouchDB a couple of times now. It’s yet another “Who needs relational databases? Who needs schemas?” kind of idea. Rather, CouchDB is for taking random documents and banging them into databases, then calculating views on the fly as needed. It’s REST-friendly. Lucene and a web server are built in.
Damien Katz seems to be the driving force behind CouchDB, and his discussion of document-oriented development seems to be a good starting point. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in CouchDB, Database diversity, Database theory and practice, Native XML | 3 Comments »
January 24th, 2008 Curt Monash
Mark Chu-Carroll has weighed in with a passionate defense of MapReduce. I only see one thing he got wrong, which was to overlook the great shared-nothing parallelism of today’s data warehouse appliances and specialty data warehouse DBMS. But that doesn’t detract from his overall point, which is that MapReduce is designed to help with parallel computing in general, not database querying in particular.
He also has the best version I know of an old observation, namely:
… [relational database] people have found the most beautiful, wonderful, perfect hammer in the whole world. It’s perfectly balanced - not too heavy, not too light, and swings just right to pound in a nail just right every time. The grip is custom-made, fitted to the shape of the owners hand, so that they can use it all day without getting any blisters. It’s also beautifully decorated - encrusted with gemstones and gold filigree - but only in places that won’t detract from how well it works as a hammer. It really is the greatest hammer ever. Relational database guys love their hammer. It’s just such a wonderful tool! And when they make something with it, it really comes out great. In fact, they like it so much that they think it’s the only tool they need. If you give them a screw, they’ll just pound it in like it’s a nail. And when you point out to them that dammit, it’s a screw, not a nail, they’ll say “I know that. But you can’t expect me to use a crappy little screwdriver when I have a magnificent hammer like this!”
Please sign up for our feed!
Posted in Database diversity, Google, BigTable, and MapReduce | No Comments »
December 2nd, 2007 Curt Monash
Amazon has a very decentralized technical operation. But even the individual pieces have interestingly huge scale. Thus, various different things they’re doing are of interest.
They recently presented a research paper on a high-performance transactional system called Dynamo. (Hat tip to Dare Obasanjo.) A key point is the following:
There are many services on Amazon’s platform that only need primary-key access to a data store. For many services, such as those that provide best seller lists, shopping carts, customer preferences, session management, sales rank, and product catalog, the common pattern of using a relational database would lead to inefficiencies and limit scale and availability. Dynamo provides a simple primary-key only interface to meet the requirements of these applications.
Now, I don’t think too many organizations past Amazon are going to decide that they can’t afford the overhead of an RDBMS for such OLTP-like applications. But I do think it will become increasingly common to find other reasons to eschew traditional OLTP relational architectures. Maybe you’ll want the schema flexibility of XML. Or perhaps you’ll be happy with a fixed relational schema, but will want to optimize for analytic performance.
Posted in Amazon, SimpleDB, and S3, Cloud computing, Database diversity, Database theory and practice, OLTP database management | No Comments »
September 6th, 2007 Curt Monash
In the first “meat” — i.e., other than housekeeping — post on the new Database Column blog, Mike Stonebraker makes three core claims:
1. Different DBMS should be used for different purposes. I am in violent agreement with that point, which is indeed a major theme of this blog.
2. Vertica’s software is 50X faster than anything non-columnar and 10X faster than anything columnar. Now, some of these stats surely come from the syndrome of comparing the future release of your product, as tuned by world’s greatest experts on it who also hope to get rich on their stock options in your company, vs. some well-established production release of your competitors’ products, tuned to an unknown level of excellence,* with the whole thing running test queries that you, in your impartial wisdom, deem representative of user needs. Or something like that … Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Columnar architectures, Data warehousing, Database diversity, Database theory and practice, Michael Stonebraker, OLTP database management, Relational database management systems, Specialized data management in general, TransRelational | 2 Comments »
March 25th, 2007 Curt Monash
Oracle made a slick move in picking up Tangosol, a leader in object/data caching for all sorts of major OLTP apps. They do financial trading, telecom operations, big web sites (Fedex, Geico), and other good stuff. This is a reminder that the list of important memory-centric data handling technologies is getting fairly long, including:
- Object caching (e.g., Tangosol, Progress ObjectStore)
- In-memory RDBMS (e.g., Oracle TimesTen, Solid BoostEngine, McObject eXtremeDB)
- Stream processing (e.g., Progress Apama, Streambase)
And that’s just for OLTP; there’s a whole other set of memory-centric technologies for analytics as well.
When one connects the dots, I think three major points jump out:
- There’s a lot more to high-end OLTP than relational database management.
- Oracle is determined to be the leader in as many of those areas as possible.
- This all fits the market disruption narrative.
I write about Point #1 all the time. So this time around let me expand a little more on #2 and #3.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Cache, Complex event/stream processing (CEP), Database diversity, Database theory and practice, Memory-centric data management, OLTP database management, Oracle, Oracle TimesTen, Progress, Apama, and DataDirect, Relational database management systems, Specialized data management in general, StreamBase, solidDB | 2 Comments »
March 6th, 2007 Curt Monash
Monash Advantage members just received an exclusive nine-page Monash Letter with a competitive overview of the DBMS industry. The full analysis is exclusive to them, but I’ll give some highlights here.
1. As per my recent “deck-clearing” posts, there’s a lot more competitive opportunity in the DBMS industry than many observers recognize.
2. One reason is the considerable number of separate niches in the DBMS space.
3. Oracle is a classical Geoffrey Moore “gorilla” only in the market for high-end OLTP and mixed-used DBMS. Everything else is up for grabs.
4. As discussed here extensively, simpler appliance-like architectures are beating the overly complex general-purpose DBMS vendors’ solutions for VLDB data warehousing.
5. MPP/shared-nothing architectures are deservedly beating SMP/shared-everything approaches for VLDB data warehousing.
That’s not the only Monash Letter recently released; another one covered online marketing strategy and tactics.
Posted in Data warehousing, Database diversity, Database theory and practice, Oracle | No Comments »
July 25th, 2006 Curt Monash
Last year, I pointed out that Amazon has a highly diversified DBMS strategy. Now Mike Vizard has a great interview with Werner Vogel, Amazon’s CTO, where he unearths a lot more detail. And it turns out that Amazon has been a hardcore adopter of DBMS2, since long before DBMS2 was named.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Amazon, SimpleDB, and S3, Database diversity, Database theory and practice, Specific users | No Comments »
December 9th, 2005 Curt Monash
There seems to be tremendous confusion about “search,” “meaning,” “semantics,” the suitability of relational DBMS to manage text data, and similar subjects. Here are some observations that may help sort some of that out.
1. Relational database theorists like to talk about the “meaning” or “semantics” of data as being in the database (specifically its metadata, and more specifically its constraints). This is at best a very limited use of the words “meaning” or “semantics,” and has little to do with understanding the meaning of plain English (or other language) phrases, sentences, paragraphs, etc. that may be stored in the database. Hugh Darwen is right and his fellow relational theorists are confused.
2. The standard way to manage text is via a full-text index, designed like this: For hundreds of thousands of words, the index maintains a list of which documents the word appears in, and at what positions in the document it appears. This is a columnar, memory-centric approach, that doesn’t work well with the architecture of mainstream relational products. Oracle pulled off a decent single-server integration nonetheless, although performance concerns linger to this day. Others, like Sybase, which attempted a Verity integration, couldn’t make it work reasonably at all. Microsoft, which started from the Sybase architecture, didn’t even try, or if they tried it wasn’t for long; Microsoft’s text search strategy has been multi-server more or less from the getgo.
3. Notwithstanding point #2, Oracle, IBM, Microsoft, and others have SQL DBMS extended to handle text via the SQL3 (or SQL/MM ) standard. (Truth be told, I get the names and sequencing of the SQL standard versions mixed up.) From this standpoint, the full text of a document is in a single column, and one can write WHERE clauses on that column using a rich set of text search operators.
But while such SQL statements formally fit into the relational predicate logic model, the fit is pretty awkward. Text search functions aren’t two-valued binary yes/no types of things; rather, they give scores, e.g. with 101 possible values (the integers from 0 - 100). Compounding them into a two-valued function typically throws away information, especially since that compounding isn’t well understood (which is why it’s so hard to usefully federate text searches across different corpuses).
4. Something even trickier is going on. Text search can be carried out against many different kinds of things. One increasingly useful target is the tables of a relational database. Where a standard SQL query might have trouble finding all the references in a whole database to a particular customer organization or product line or whatever, a text search can do a better job. This kind of use is becoming increasingly frequent. And while it works OK against relational products, it doesn’t fit into the formal relational model at all (at least not without a tremendous amount of contortion).
5. Relational DBMS typically manage the data they index. Text search systems often don’t. But that difference is almost a small one compared with some of the others mentioned above, especially since it’s a checkmark item for leading RDBMS to have some sort of formal federation capability.
Posted in Database diversity, Database theory and practice, Memory-centric data management, Relational database management systems | 4 Comments »
November 13th, 2005 Curt Monash
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.
Posted in Database diversity, Database theory and practice, Hierarchies, networks, graphs, and trees, Native XML, Relational database management systems | No Comments »
October 13th, 2005 Curt Monash
Critics of the DBMS2 idea generally are focused on the design of a single database. That’s somewhat missing the point.
Here are some excerpts and paraphrases from a discussion over on TDAN.
- “DBMS2” is NOT primarily a blueprint for how to design a single database or a single DBMS. That said, it does give guidance as to what kinds of DBMS and data architecture choices you should consider and favor for each cluster of applications.
- Text, presence, authentication, customer profiling – I don’t think any of these will wind up being handled relationally, although at least in the case of customer profiling that’s currently a minority viewpoint.
- In particular, text processing is poised to explode as a fraction of the overall IT burden.
- XML is pretty clearly going to be the basis of text data management.
- Unless all your apps are built by the same company, and perhaps not even then, there’s no way you’ll have a single integrated database. The way your different databases will talk to each other is XML.
- It’s clear that a typical large enterprise’s data structure will evolve to part relational and part XML, and possibly some other data models as well, all tied together by XML. None of the relational-ueber-alles arguments can or should change that. At best, they are reasons to make the relational piece bigger and more tightly integrated.
Posted in Database diversity, Database theory and practice | 3 Comments »
October 10th, 2005 Curt Monash
Break the data management problem into pieces, and stitch the pieces together.
Some of the pieces are best managed relationally, for all the well-known reasons; some, especially but not only the document-oriented ones, are not. XML-based SOA, or a successor, is the right framework for most of the stitching.
Posted in Database diversity, Database theory and practice | No Comments »
October 10th, 2005 Curt Monash
My introduction of the DBMS2 concept in an August Computerworld column has excited some heated discussion, little of it focused on what I regard as the core issues. But I must concede that in a short series of monthly 750 word columns (two published so far), with a target audience of senior IT managers, I have not necessarily made a clear statement of whether or why database designers should agree or care.
So here’s a little more of that story.
1. Everybody knows that large enterprises do not have single enterprise-wide data models, nor do they have single integrated enterprise databases, managed by a single DBMS.
2. The situation described in Point #1 is inevitable. Deal with it. Stop your futile efforts to change it.
3. What’s more, the obvious disadvantages to the situation in Point #1 are outweighed by other strong TCO advantages. Different kinds of data models, and different kinds of DBMS (or DBMS-substitutes) are appropriate for different applications and data sets.
That’s it.
Some supporting arguments may be found in my column appearing today (see other post). Most of the ones I had room for boil down to this:
Relational databases are ideally suited to manage facts. Most interesting new applications don’t deal (primarily) with the management of facts.
Posted in Database diversity, Database theory and practice, Relational database management systems | 2 Comments »
August 13th, 2005 Curt Monash
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.
Technorati Tags: DBMS, DBMS2, database, Oracle, DB2, Microsoft, In-memory data management, Dead parrot
Posted in Database diversity, Database theory and practice, IBM and DB2, MOLAP, Memory-centric data management, Microsoft and SQL*Server, Oracle, Progress, Apama, and DataDirect, Relational database management systems | 1 Comment »
August 8th, 2005 Curt Monash
As with all changes in information technology, the move to DBMS2 will largely be one of evolution. But it does have a couple of revolutionary aspects.
Short-term, the biggest change is a renunciation of database and DBMS vendor consolidation. Consolidation never has worked, it never will work, and as data integration technologies keep improving it’s not that important anyway.
IBM and Oracle offer really great, brilliantly complex data warehousing technology. But if you want the most bang for the buck, forget about them, and go instead with a specialty vendor. Depending on the specifics of your situation, Teradata, Netezza, Datallego, WhiteCross, or SAP may offer the best choice, and that list could be even longer.
Similarly, for generic OLTP data management, cheap and/or open source options are getting ever more attractive. Microsoft is a serious contender for applications that previously only Oracle and IBM could handle, while MySQL and maybe Ingres are moving up the food chain right behind.
In many cases, these alternative technologies are lower-cost across the board: Lower purchase price, lower ongoing maintenance fees, and lower administrative costs.
So what, again, is the case for consolidation?
Technorati Tags: Database, SQL, SQL*Server, relational database, DBMS, RDBMS, DBMS2, Oracle, DB2, IBM, MySQL, Ingres, Netezza, Datallegro, SAP, WhiteCross, OLAP
Posted in Data warehouse appliances, Database diversity, Database theory and practice, IBM and DB2, Ingres, Memory-centric data management, Microsoft and SQL*Server, MySQL, Open source RDBMS, Oracle, Relational database management systems | Comments Off