Theory and architecture
Analysis of design choices in databases and database management systems. Related subjects include:
- Any subcategory
- Database diversity
- Explicit support for specific data types
- (in Text Technologies) Text search
Aster Data enters the appliance game
Aster Data is rolling out a line of nCluster appliances today. Highlights include:
- Configurations ranging from 9 6.25 terabytes to 1 petabyte of user data. (Edit: Here’s the up-to-date data sheet.)
- A $50K “Express Edition” price for <1 terabyte of user data. Unfortunately, that’s the only stated price.
- The option of bundled MicroStrategy.
- “MapReduce” in the name, which suggests something about the positioning — i.e., enterprise decision support, rather than Aster’s usual web/”frontline” emphasis. (Edit: That also fits with Aster’s recent MapReduce-for-.NET announcement.) (Edit: Actual name is Aster MapReduce Data Warehouse Appliance.)
- Claims that because Aster runs effectively on cheaper, more truly “commodity” hardware than competitors, you get more hardware bang for the buck if you buy from Aster.
I don’t have a lot more to add right now, mainly because I wrote at some length about Aster’s non-appliance-specific, non-MapReduce technology and positioning a couple of weeks ago.
| Categories: Analytic technologies, Aster Data, Business intelligence, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Database compression, MapReduce, Pricing | 16 Comments |
The TPC-H benchmark is a blight upon the industry
ParAccel has released a 30,000-gigabtye TPC-H benchmark, and no less a sage than Merv Adrian paid attention. Now, the TPCs may have had some use in the 1990s. Indeed, Merv was my analyst relations contact for a visit to my clients at Sybase around the time — 1996 or so — I was advising Sybase on how to market against its poor benchmark results. But TPCs are worthless today.
It’s not just that TPCs are highly tuned (ParAccel’s claim of “load-and-go” is laughable Edit: Looking at Appendix A of the full disclosure report, maybe it’s more justified than I thought.). It’s also not just that different analytic database management products perform very differently on different workloads, making the TPC-H not much of an indicator of anything real-life. The biggest problem is: Most TPC benchmarks are run on absurdly unrealistic hardware configurations.
For example, if you look at some details, the ParAccel 30-terabyte benchmark ran on 43 nodes, each with 64 gigabytes of RAM and 24 terabytes of disk. That’s 961,124.9 gigabytes of disk, officially, for a 32:1 disk/data ratio. By way of contrast, real-life analytic DBMS with good compression often have disk/data ratios of well under 1:1.
Meanwhile, the RAM:data ratio is around 1:11 It’s clear that ParAccel’s early TPC-H benchmarks ran entirely in RAM; indeed, ParAccel even admits that. And so I conjecture that ParAccel’s latest TPC-H benchmark ran (almost) entirely in RAM as well. Once again, this would illustrate that the TPC-H is irrelevant to judging an analytic DBMS’ real world performance.
More generally — I would not advise anybody to consider ParAccel’s product, for any use, except after a proof-of-concept in which ParAccel was not given the time and opportunity to perform extensive off-site tuning. I tend to feel that way about all analytic DBMS, but it’s a particular concern in the case of ParAccel.
| Categories: Analytic technologies, Benchmarks and POCs, Buying processes, Columnar database management, Data warehousing, Database compression, ParAccel | 96 Comments |
Aster Data on parallelism
Aster Data’s core claim boils down to “We do parallelism better.” Aster has shied away from saying that for marketing purposes, for fear of the response “Yeah, right, everybody says that.” But when I talked with Mayank Bawa, Steve Wooledge, et al. yesterday, I focused discussions on just that point. Based on that chat and others before, here are some highlights (as I understand them) of what Aster claims, believes, or believes to be differentiated about its nCluster technology: Read more
| Categories: Analytic technologies, Aster Data, Data warehousing, MapReduce, Parallelization, Theory and architecture | 3 Comments |
An example of what’s wrong with big vendors’ approaches to BI (SAP in this case)
I just found Chris Kanaracus’ article about SAP’s rollout last month of its “clear enterprises” strategy. The money quote comes from Sara Lee, the user SAP seems to have trotted out:
But Sara Lee has not yet decided to purchase the software, and there are substantial underlying tasks to perform as well, he added.
“This is giving us the horsepower [to analyze data] but we need to have harmonized and structured data underneath it.”
This is from the leading test user of the product?
Business intelligence and the associated data management processes need to be reimagined, and I’m increasingly coming to suspect that the big BI conglomerates aren’t up to the task.
| Categories: Analytic technologies, Business intelligence, SAP AG, Specific users, Theory and architecture | Leave a Comment |
Google Fusion Tables
Google has announced an experimental cloud-based data management system called Fusion Tables. A press article and Slashdot thread ensued, based on some bizarre-sounding analyst quotes that I will not attempt to parse.
What Fusion Tables really seems to be is a spreadsheet without the formulae. That is, it’s a place to dump data in a grid of cells, comment on it, version it, and do elementary data manipulation. This could, I guess, be useful as an alternative to traditional RDBMS — assuming, of course, that you want to have a row-by-row debate about 100 megs of data.
Seriously, while Google Fusion Tables bears some vague resemblance to what I’m thinking about for the future of both business intelligence and data marts, it sounds as if it has a long way to go before it’s something most enterprises should spend time looking at.
| Categories: Analytic technologies, Google, Theory and architecture | 1 Comment |
Per-terabyte pricing
Software-only DBMS vendors sometimes price per terabyte of user data. Vertica’s list price is $100K/TB. Greenplum’s list price is $70K/TB. In practice, both offer substantial discounts, especially at higher volumes. In both cases, this means raw data, uncompressed, without counting indexes or temp space.
Client experience teaches me that this definition is easy to forget, so let me reemphasize the key point:
Per-terabyte pricing is based on a calculated figure. Per-terabyte pricing is not based on the current disk space used by your database when managed by the DBMS you are replacing.
There’s at least one important difference in how Vertica and Greenplum calculate database size. No matter how many times you copy the data, Vertica only charges you for it once.* But if you spin out data marts and recopy data into it — as Greenplum rightly encourages you to do — Greenplum wants to be paid for each copy. Similarly, Vertica charges only for deployment, and not for test or development; I didn’t remember to ask what Greenplum’s policies are in those regards. (Edit: Greenplum says in a comment below that it doesn’t charge for test or development data either.)
*That policy is a great fit with Vertica’s performance recommendation that you should store columns in different sort orders, perhaps an average of two copies per column.
| Categories: Columnar database management, Data warehousing, Greenplum, Pricing, Vertica Systems | 7 Comments |
Merv Adrian on SAND Technology
Merv Adrian blogged about SAND Technology, casting significant doubt on SAND’s business prospects. At this point, I can’t say I disagree. On the other hand, SAND does have public, audited financial statements showing it generating more revenue than a lot of other analytic DBMS or archiving vendors probably make. Columnar DBMS vendors doing better than SAND are Sybase, Vertica, maybe Infobright — and who else?
| Categories: Archiving and information preservation, Columnar database management, Data warehousing, SAND Technology | 1 Comment |
Daniel Abadi on Kickfire and related subjects
Daniel Abadi has a new blog, whose first post centers around Kickfire. The money quote is (emphasis mine):
In order for me to get excited about Kickfire, I have to ignore Mike Stonebraker’s voice in my head telling me that DBMS hardware companies have been launched many times in the past are ALWAYS fail (the main reasoning is that Moore’s law allows for commodity hardware to catch up in performance, eventually making the proprietary hardware overpriced and irrelevant). But given that Moore’s law is transforming into increased parallelism rather than increased raw speed, maybe hardware DBMS companies can succeed now where they have failed in the past
Good point.
More generally, Abadi speculates about the market for MySQL-compatible data warehousing. My responses include:
- OF COURSE there are many MySQL users who need to move to a serious analytic DBMS.
- What’s less clear is whether there’s any big advantage to those users in remaining MySQL-compatible when they do move. I’m not sure what MySQL-specific syntax or optimizations they’d have that would be difficult to port to a non-MySQL system.
- It’s nice to see Abadi speaking well of Infobright and its technology.
- To say that Infobright went open source because it was “desperate” is overstated. That said, I don’t think Infobright was on track to prosper without going open source.
- While open source and MySQL go together, an appliance like Kickfire loses many (not all) of the benefits of open source.
- Calpont has indeed never disclosed a customer win. Any year now … (Just kidding, Vogel!)
- In general, seeing Abadi be so favorable toward Vertica competitors adds credibiity to the recent Hadoop vs. DBMS paper.
Anyhow, as previously noted, I’m a big Daniel Abadi fan. I look forward to seeing what else he posts in his blog, and am optimistic he’ll live up to or exceed its stated goals.
| Categories: Calpont, Columnar database management, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, DBMS product categories, Infobright, Kickfire, MySQL, Open source, Theory and architecture | 2 Comments |
Greenplum update — Release 3.3 and so on
I visited Greenplum in early April, and talked with them again last night. As I noted in a separate post, there are a couple of subjects I won’t write about today. But that still leaves me free to cover a number of other points about Greenplum, including: Read more
| Categories: Data warehousing, Database compression, EAI, EII, ETL, ELT, ETLT, Greenplum, MapReduce, Market share and customer counts, Parallelization, PostgreSQL, Pricing | 11 Comments |
Sneakernet to the cloud
Recently, Amazon CTO Werner Vogels put up a blog post which suggested that, now and in the future, the best way to get large databases into the cloud is via sneakernet. In some circumstances, he is surely right. Possible implications include:
- When sending data to the cloud, you probably want to compress it to the max before sending. Clearpace’s new RainStor structured-data archiving service emphasizes that idea. RainStor marketing says cloud, cloud, cloud — but Clearpace thinks you really should have a bit of its software onsite too, to compress the data before sending it across the wire.
- Getting data from one cloud to another cloud could be problematic. I’m fond of saying that weblog data naturally lives in the cloud at your hosting company’s location, so you should analyze it there too. But this makes the most sense if you analyze it or at least filter/reduce it in place. (That said, the really, really big web companies have lots of different data centers, and presumably do move huge amounts of log data from place to place.)
But for one-time moves of data sets — sure, sneaker net/snail mail should work just fine.