Analysis of hybrid memory-centric DBMS solidDB and its developer Solid Technology. Related subjects include:

March 11, 2008

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.

February 20, 2008

ObjectGrid versus H-Store

Billy Newport of IBM sees a lot of similarities between his app-server-based product ObjectGrid and H-Store. In both cases, constrained tree schemas are assumed, and OLTP performance goodness ensues. A couple of points I noted on a quick skim through his blog:

  1. He calls out RAM consumption as a challenge for this kind of architecture.
  2. He points out that it’s a big advantage to have data called and used in the same address space.

Being based in RAM is obviously a huge part of the H-Store scheme. But so is having transaction execution be close to the database.

IBM now has both ObjectGrid and a memory-centric DBMS (solidDB) that they’ve been using as a front end for DBMS. Integration of the two could be pretty interesting.

December 21, 2007

IBM acquires SolidDB to compete with Oracle TimesTen

IBM is acquiring Solid Information Technology, makers of solidDB. Some quick comments:

Read more

June 25, 2007

Webinar Wednesday June 27 at 2:00 pm ET

I’m sorry for the short notice, but — well, never mind what the distractions have been. This Wednesday, at 2:00 pm Eastern time, I’m doing a webinar on behalf of Solid. The core subject is memory-centric OLTP data management. I will of course also cover some DBMS and memory-centric generalities.

More info and sign-up can be found here.

June 22, 2007

Memory-centric vs. conventional DBMS — a Solid difference

I had the chance to talk at length with Solid Information Technology tech guru Antoni Wolski about their memory-centric DBMS technology architecture. The most urgent topic was what made in-memory database managers inherently faster than disk-based ones that happened to have all the data in cache. But we didn’t really separate that subject from the general topic of how they made their memory-centric technology run fast, from its introduction in 2002 through substantial upgrades in the most recent release.

There were 4 main subtopics to the call:

1. Indexing structures that are very different from those of disk-based DBMS.
2. Optimizations to those indexing structures.
3. Optimizations to logging and checkpointing.
4. Miscellaneous architectural issues.
Read more

June 20, 2007

SolidDB caching for DB2

It’s just at the proof-of-concept stage, but Solid has a nice write-up about SolidDB being used as a front-end cache for DB2. Well, it’s a marketing document, so of course there’s a lot of pabulum too, but interspersed there’s some real meat as well. Highlights include 40X throughput improvement and 1 millisecond average response time (something that clearly can’t be achieved with disk-centric technology alone).

Analogies to Oracle/TimesTen are probably not coincidental; this is exactly the upside scenario for the TimesTen acquisition, as well as being TimesTen’s biggest growth area towards the end of its stint as an independent company.

April 18, 2007

SolidDB and MySQL 5.0 – how industrial-strength in OLTP?

MySQL 4.0 is an OLTP joke. MySQL 5.0, however, shows a lot of progress in terms of real transactions, foreign keys, referential integrity, triggers, stored procedures and so on. In anticipation of the MySQL user conference next week, I got a quick briefing from Paola Lubet and Murat Demiroglu at Solid Information Technology, whose SolidDB is one of the two transactional storage engines for MySQL (the other is InnoDB, now owned by Oracle).

The layer provided by MySQL actually does most of what I think of as “language processing” – parsing, optimization, drivers, triggers, stored procedures, referential integrity, etc. SolidDB is a storage engine providing actual execution. Its features and virtues include:

Online backup. (Note: Apparently, the extra-cost InnoDB online backup product isn’t showing up on price lists these days.)
Optimistic (as well as pessimistic) concurrency control. This can be a good performance feature for applications that have a whole lot of Adds and very few Changes.
General reliability. Unless they really botched the port, Solid benefits from a long history of very reliable operation.
High availability. Scheduled for alpha in early summer and beta in the fall is a high-availability option. This initial-release will be master-slave synchronous replication. More sophisticated replication could come later on, as could memory-centric performance, if market conditions seem to warrant it (I’m betting they will).

Read more

April 18, 2007

Naming the DBMS disruptors

Edit: This post has largely been superseded by this more recent one defining mid-range relational DBMS.

I find myself defining a new product category – midrange OLTP/multipurpose DBMS. (Or just midrange DBMS for brevity.) Nothing earthshaking here; I’m simply referring to those products that: Read more

March 25, 2007

Oracle, Tangosol, objects, caching, and disruption

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:

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:

  1. There’s a lot more to high-end OLTP than relational database management.
  2. Oracle is determined to be the leader in as many of those areas as possible.
  3. 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 more

February 27, 2007

OLTP database management system market – the consensus isn’t ALL wrong (deck-clearing post #1)

Most of what I’ve written lately about database management seems to have been focused on analytic technologies. But I have a lot to say on the OLTP (OnLine Transaction Processing) side too. So let’s start by clearing the decks. Here’s a list of some consensus views that I in essence agree with:

← Previous PageNext Page →

Feed: DBMS (database management system), DW (data warehousing), BI (business intelligence), and analytics technology Subscribe to the Monash Research feed via RSS or email:


Search our blogs and white papers

Monash Research blogs

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.

Monash Research highlights

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