April 21st, 2008 Curt Monash
It took a lot of patient nagging, but DATAllegro finally has a blog. Based on the first post, I predict:
- DATAllegro’s blog will live up to CEO Stuart Frost’s talent for clear, interesting writing.
- Like a number of other vendor blogs — e.g., Netezza’s — DATAllegro’s will have infrequent but usually long posts.
The crunchiest part of the first post is probably
Another very important aspect of performance is ensuring sequential reads under a complex workload. Traditional databases do not do a good job in this area - even though some of the management tools might tell you that they are! What we typically see is that the combination of RAID arrays and intervening storage infrastructure conspires to break even large reads by the database into very small reads against each disk. The end result is that most large DW installations have very large arrays of expensive, high-speed disks behind them - and still suffer from poor performance.
I’ve pounded the table about sequential reads multiple times — including in a (DATAllegro-sponsored) white paper — but the point about misleading management tools is new to me.
Now if I could just get a production DATAllegro reference, I’d be completely happy …
Posted in Analytics and analytic technologies, DATAllegro, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Relational database management systems | No Comments »
April 5th, 2008 Curt Monash
There now are four hardware vendors that each offer or seem about to announce two different tiers of data warehouse appliances: Sun, HP, EMC, and Teradata. Specifically:
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Analytics and analytic technologies, DATAllegro, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Dataupia, Greenplum, HP and Neoview, IBM and DB2, Infobright and Brighthouse, Kognitio and WX2, Microsoft and SQL*Server, Netezza, Oracle, ParAccel, Relational database management systems, Sybase, Teradata | 4 Comments »
January 14th, 2008 Curt Monash
I’m getting a flood of press releases today, because many of the companies I write about were selected to Intelligent Enterprise’s list of 12 most influential vendors plus 36 more to watch in the areas Intelligent Enterprise covers (which seems to be pretty much the analytics-related parts of what I write about here and on Text Technologies). It looks like a pretty reasonable list, although I think they forced the issue in some of the small analytics vendors they selected, and of course anybody can quibble with some of the omissions.
Among the companies they cited, you can find topical categories here for IBM (and Cognos), Informatica, Microsoft, Netezza, Oracle, SAP/Business Objects (both), SAS, and Teradata; QlikTech; Cast Iron, Coral8, DATAllegro, HP, ParAccel, and StreamBase; and Software AG. On Text Technologies you’ll find categories for some of the same vendors, plus Attensity, Clarabridge, and Google. There also are categories for some of these vendors on the Monash Report.
Posted in Business Objects, Cast Iron Systems, Coral8, DATAllegro, HP and Neoview, IBM and DB2, Informatica, Microsoft and SQL*Server, Netezza, Oracle, ParAccel, QlikTech and QlikView, SAP, BI Accelerator, and MaxDB, SAS Institute, Software AG and ADABAS, StreamBase, Teradata | No Comments »
December 14th, 2007 Curt Monash
There are at least 16 different vendors offering appliances and/or software that do database management primarily for analytic purposes.* That’s a lot to keep up with,. So I’ve thrown together a little overview of the analytic data management landscape, liberally salted with links to information about specific vendors, products, or technical issues. In some ways, this is a companion piece to my prior post about data warehouse appliance myths and realities.
*And that’s just the tabular/alphanumeric guys. Add in text search and you run the total a lot higher.
Numerous data warehouse specialists offer traditional row-based relational DBMS architectures, but optimize them for analytic workloads. These include Teradata, Netezza, DATAllegro, Greenplum, Dataupia, and SAS. All of those except SAS are wholly or primarily vendors of MPP/shared-nothing data warehouse appliances. EDIT: See the comment thread for a correction re Kognitio.
Numerous data warehouse specialists offer column-based relational DBMS architectures. These include Sybase (with the Sybase IQ product, originally from Expressway), Vertica, ParAccel, Infobright, Kognitio (formerly White Cross), and Sand. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Analytics and analytic technologies, Cognos and Applix TM1, DATAllegro, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Dataupia, Greenplum, IBM and DB2, Kognitio and WX2, Netezza, Oracle, ParAccel, Relational database management systems, SAS Institute, Sybase, Teradata, Vertica Systems | 10 Comments »
November 7th, 2007 Curt Monash
Vertica quietly announced an appliance bundling deal with HP and Red Hat today. That got me quickly onto the phone with Vertica’s Andy Ellicott, to discuss a few different subjects. Most interesting was the part about Vertica’s customer base, highlights of which included:
- Vertica’s claim to have “50” customers includes a bunch of unpaid licenses, many of them in academia.
- Vertica has about 15 paying customers.
- Based on conversations with mutual prospects, Vertica believes that’s more customers than DATAllegro has. (Of course, each DATAllegro sale is bigger than one of Vertica’s. Even so, I hope Vertica is wrong in its estimate, since DATAllegro told me its customer count was “double digit” quite a while ago.)
- Most Vertica customers manage over 1 terabyte of user data. A couple have bought licenses showing they intend to manage 20 terabytes or so.
- Vertica’s biggest customer/application category – existing customers and sales pipelines alike – is call detail records for telecommunications companies. (Other data warehouse specialists also have activity in the CDR area.). Major applications are billing assurance (getting the inter-carrier charges right) and marketing analysis. Call center uses are still in the future.
- Vertica’s other big market to date is investment research/tick history. Surely not coincidentally, this is a big area of focus for Mike Stonebraker, evidently at both companies for which he’s CTO. (The other, of course, is StreamBase.)
-
Runners-up in market activity are clickstream analysis and general consumer analytics. These seem to be present in Vertica’s pipeline more than in the actual customer base.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Analytics and analytic technologies, Business Objects, DATAllegro, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, HP and Neoview, RDF and graphs, Relational database management systems, Vertica Systems | No Comments »
October 25th, 2007 Curt Monash
Privately held DATAllegro just announced a few tidbits about financial results and suchlike for the fiscal year ended June, 2007. I sent over a few clarifying questions yesterday. Responses included:
- Yes, the company experienced 330% year-over-year annual revenue growth.
- The majority of DATAllegro customers have bought systems in the 25-100 terabyte range.
- One system over 250 terabytes has been in production for months (surely the one I previously wrote about); a second is being installed.
- DATAllegro has “about 100” employees. By way of comparison, Netezza reported 225 full-time employees for the year ended January, 2007 – which probably means as of January 31, 2007.
All told, it sounds as if DATAllegro is more than 1/3 the size of Netezza, although given its higher system size and price points I’d guess it has well under 1/3 as many customers.
Here’s a link. I’ll likely edit that to something more permament-seeming later, and generally spruce this up when I’m not so rushed.
Posted in Analytics and analytic technologies, DATAllegro, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Relational database management systems | 7 Comments »
October 19th, 2007 Curt Monash
It’s early autumn, the leaves are turning in New England, and Gartner has issued another Magic Quadrant for data warehouse DBMS. The big winners vs. last year are Greenplum and, secondarily, Sybase. Teradata continues to lead. Oracle has also leapfrogged IBM, and there are various other minor adjustments as well, among repeat mentionees Netezza, DATAllegro, Sand, Kognitio, and MySQL. HP isn’t on the radar yet; ditto Vertica. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Analytics and analytic technologies, DATAllegro, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Greenplum, HP and Neoview, IBM and DB2, Kognitio and WX2, MySQL, Netezza, Oracle, Relational database management systems, Sybase, Teradata, Vertica Systems | 6 Comments »
October 12th, 2007 Curt Monash
I’ve been arguing for a while that Oracle and Microsoft are screwed in high-end data warehousing. The reason is that they’re stuck with SMP (Symmetric Multi-Processing) architectures, while Teradata, Netezza, DATAllegro, and many others enjoy the benefits of MPP (Massively Parallel Processing). Thus, Teradata and DATAllegro boast installations in the hundreds of terabytes each, while Oracle and Microsoft users usually have to perform unnatural acts of hard-coded partitioning even to reach the 10 terabyte level.
That said, there are at least three ways Oracle and/or Microsoft could get out of this technical box:
1. They could buy or just partner with MPP vendors such as Dataupia, who offer plug-compatibility with their respective main DBMS.
2. They could buy whoever they want, plug-compatibility be damned. Presumably, they’d quickly add a light-weight data federation front-end to give the appearance of integration, then merge the products more closely over time.
3. They could develop or buy technology like DATAllegro’s, which essentially federates instances of an ordinary SMP DBMS across nodes of an MPP grid (Greenplum does something similar). I imagine that, for example, ripping Ingres out of DATAllegro and slotting in Oracle instead would be a pretty straightforward exercise; even without dramatic change to any of the optimizations, the resulting port would be something that ran pretty quickly on Day 1.
Bottom line: Oracle and Microsoft are hemorrhaging at the data warehouse high end now. But there are ways they could stanch the bleeding.
Posted in Analytics and analytic technologies, DATAllegro, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Dataupia, Greenplum, Microsoft and SQL*Server, Oracle, Portability, transparency, and plug-compatibility, Relational database management systems, Teradata | 1 Comment »
October 8th, 2007 Curt Monash
Teradata finally announced multidimensional range partitioning in Version 12, not that they kept their plans in that regard a big secret. DATAllegro has also shipped multidimensional partitioning to at least one customer. Other vendors — well, I’ll stop there, given my ongoing atttitude problems about vendors’ self-defeating NDAs.
Whether or not multidimensional partitioning is a big improvement over single-dimensional will of course depend a great deal on the details of a particular database. Teradata used a figure of 30% performance improvement, but that’s surely just an example. Certainly in some extreme cases one could have a rather large reduction in the amount of data retrieved, and correspondingly a many-times-X improvement in the performance of certain important queries. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Analytics and analytic technologies, DATAllegro, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Relational database management systems, Teradata | No Comments »
September 28th, 2007 Curt Monash
Actually, I’m kidding with the post title; I doubt that Oracle’s new deal with DATAllegro partners Dell and EMC has much to do with DATAllegro at all. Rather, I think it’s an example of a trend I’m also sensing* from other major hardware vendors — doing deals with multiple data warehouse software suppliers to cover different hardware size ranges. This just happens to be the first one to be announced.
*How’s that for a nice, vague euphemism?
DATAllegro is targeted at warehouses sized, at a minimum, in the tens of terabytes of user data. Oracle’s technology works well enough up into at least the multi-terabyte range — unless you’re looking to get the best possible price and/or performance on your system — but then things start getting dicey. So there isn’t a lot of overlap between the two Dell/EMC offerings. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Analytics and analytic technologies, DATAllegro, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Oracle, Relational database management systems | 1 Comment »
September 27th, 2007 Curt Monash
I just found a blog post asking about Netezza that elicited quite a few responses, including at least four that purported to be from people whose companies had selected Netezza in a POC (Proof Of Concept) bake-off. One says Netezza was super-fast, even over DATAllegro, and DATAllegro’s professional services were lacking. One says Netezza is 50X faster than traditional alternatives on some queries, but up to 2X slower on some others. Two others just expressed love (or at least commitment) without giving details.
I haven’t yet looked through the rest of the responses in the thread.
Keep getting great research about database management systems, business intelligence, and related technologies. Get a FREE subscription by RSS/Atom or e-mail!
Technorati Tags: Netezza, data warehousing, data warehouse appliance, proof of concept
Posted in Analytics and analytic technologies, DATAllegro, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Netezza | 3 Comments »
September 26th, 2007 Curt Monash
EDIT: Big whoops, and apologies to Philip. I didn’t check the date, and what I linked to was last year’s article. That said, it read as if it could have been this year’s, which tells us something about the pace of Netezza’s information disclosure. Resulting errors of mine are left in place.
Netezza perennially annoys me by the secrecy with which it surrounds its information disclosure, especially at the annual user conference (just concluded). Essentially, except for what has also been separately disclosed, the whole thing is under NDA beyond the generality “We told you that we intend to improve our product by making more use of the FPGA.” Blech. That said, Philip Howard* has a long and — no surprise there! — upbeat article. So I’ll link to that, saving me some worries about what I myself am or am not allowed to say. E.g., I wouldn’t dare suggest — as Philip does — that Netezza’s zone maps (essentially, one-dimensional partitioning) could be enhanced going forward. And while I think Netezza has made strong efforts to tell the marketing stories Philip describes as being “hidden under a bushel,” I agree that — largely because of its self-defeating mania for secrecy — Netezza hasn’t done nearly as good a job of getting those messages accepted as it could have.
*Just to be clear — notwithstanding how much I tweak him for his exuberance, Philip seems to be a great guy, both in his publications and in person.
In general, much of what Philip wrote I would agree with. That said, let me hasten to point out some exceptions, including: Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in DATAllegro, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Netezza, Relational database management systems | 2 Comments »
September 24th, 2007 Curt Monash
I’ve been slow to notice a very useful service being provided by Seeking Alpha, namely transcripts of quarterly earnings conference calls. For example, the Netezza call on August 23 revealed that Netezza sells approximately as many systems per year as it has quota-carrying sales teams. Or maybe it’s closer to 2 sales per team, especially for the more experienced ones. More precisely, the numbers discussed were 6-15 sales per quarter, and 35 sales teams. Average deal size was $2.3 million; based on the earnings press release, that suggests 10-11 deals depending on how much service revenue (if any) was included.
And by the way, if Netezza does 6-15 sales per quarter, and has a much smaller average sale than DATAllegro, and has much more revenue than DATAllegro — well, it’s easy to understand why DATAllegro isn’t exhibiting a very long list of customers.
Keep getting great research about data warehouse appliances and related technologies. Get a FREE subscription by RSS/Atom or e-mail!
Posted in DATAllegro, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Netezza | 1 Comment »
September 19th, 2007 Curt Monash
I was chatting with Stuart Frost this evening (DATAllegro’s CEO). As usual, I grilled him about customer counts; as usual, he was evasive, but expressed general ebullience about the pace of business; also as usual, he was charming and helpful on other subjects.
In particular, we talked about the Vertica story, and he offered some interesting pushback. Part was blindingly obvious — Vertica’s not in the marketplace yet, when they are the product won’t be mature, and so on. Part was the also obvious “we can do most of that ourselves” line of argument, some of which I’ve summarized in a comment here. But he made two other interesting points as well. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Columnar architectures, DATAllegro, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Database theory and practice, Relational database management systems, Vertica Systems | 1 Comment »
August 16th, 2007 Curt Monash
In the literal sense, that is. While the details on what I wrote about this a few weeks ago* are still embargoed, I’m at liberty to drop a few more hints.
*Please also see DATAllegro CEO Stuart Frost’s two comments added today to that thread.
DATAllegro systems these days basically consist of Dell servers talking to EMC disk arrays, with Cisco Infiniband to provide fast inter-server communication without significant CPU load. Well, if you decrease the number of Dell servers per EMC box, and increase the number of disks per EMC box, you can slash your per-terabyte price (possibly at the cost of lowering performance).
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in DATAllegro, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Database compression, Relational database management systems | No Comments »
July 25th, 2007 Curt Monash
DATAllegro Stuart Frost called in for a prebriefing/feedback/consulting session. (I love advising my DBMS vendor clients on how to beat each other’s brains in. This was even more fun in the 1990s, when combat was generally more aggressive. Those were also the days when somebody would change jobs to an arch-rival and immediately explain how everything they’d told me before was utterly false …)
While I had Stuart on the phone, I did manage to extract some stuff I’m at liberty to use immediately. Here are the highlights: Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in DATAllegro, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Database compression, Greenplum, Netezza, Relational database management systems, Teradata | 4 Comments »
June 14th, 2007 Curt Monash
The word from Vertica is that the product will go GA in the fall, and that they’ll have blow-out benchmarks to exhibit.
I find this very credible. Indeed, the above may even be something of an understatement.
Vertica’s product surely has some drawbacks, which will become more apparent when the product is more available for examination. So I don’t expect row-based appliance innovators Netezza and DATAllegro to just dry up and blow away. On the other hand, not every data warehousing product is going to live long and prosper, and I’d rate Vertica’s chances higher than those of several competitors that are actually already in GA.
Want to continue getting great research about DBMS, analytics, data integration, and other technologies related to data management? Then get a FREE subscription, by RSS/Atom or e-mail! We recommend taking the integrated feed for all our blogs, but blog-specific ones are also easily available.
Posted in Columnar architectures, DATAllegro, Data warehousing, Netezza, Vertica Systems | 2 Comments »
May 10th, 2007 Curt Monash
Following up on an earlier piece, DATAllegro has sponsored a second white paper on MPP data warehouse appliances. This one focuses specifically on DATAllegro’s move from Type 1 to Type 2 (i.e., virtual) appliances, via its new V3 product line. The basic tradeoffs of this move include:
- Superior hardware reliability
-
Hardware lock-in shifted from DATAllegro to Dell, EMC, and Cisco
-
Loss of specialized encryption acceleration
-
Possibly a loss of some other performance optimization as well
- Better time-to-market in exploiting general Moore’s Law performance speedups
Actually, I didn’t make that last point explicitly in the paper, but it quite possibly trumps any performance disadvantages from the switch. And Moore’s Law itself certainly far outweighs any other performance-affecting factors.
Want to continue getting great research about DBMS, analytics, data integration, and other technologies related to data management? Get a FREE subscription by RSS/Atom or e-mail! We recommend taking the integrated feed for all our blogs, but blog-specific ones are also easily available.
Technorati Tags: DATAllegro, data warehouse, appliance
Posted in DATAllegro, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Relational database management systems | No Comments »
April 11th, 2007 Curt Monash
The fourth Monash Letter is now posted for Monash Advantage members (just 3 pages this time). It’s about forthcoming M&A in data warehouse DBMS, something that seems likely just because of the large number of current players. Some of the observations are:
- Oracle needs to buy somebody, because of its rather dire product problems at the data warehouse high end. And it’s very much in keeping with their recent behavior to do so.
- Teradata could be acquired sooner than people think. While there are tax considerations preventing an outright sale, these should be obviated if all of the current NCR is taken private. What’s more NCR minus Teradata is exactly the kind of healthy, slow-growth, niche company that private equity loves.
- DATAllegro is a natural merger partner for somebody. Their technical differentiation is almost DBMS-independent, so it could be easy to roll them into a larger overall product strategy. And they have enough market traction to have proved some non-trivial value.
- Kognitio seems desperate these days, with several odd or even underhanded marketing tactics. But they do have MPP bitmap software, something Sybase sorely lacks. So there’s an obvious potential combination between those two.
Technorati Tags: NCR, Teradata, Oracle, DATAllegro, Kognitio, Sybase, private equity, data warehouse, database management, software
Posted in DATAllegro, Data warehousing, Kognitio and WX2, Oracle, Relational database management systems, Sybase, Teradata | 2 Comments »
March 26th, 2007 Curt Monash
Many of my thoughts on data warehouse DBMS and appliances have been collected in a white paper, sponsored by DATAllegro. As in a couple of other white papers — collected here — I coined a phrase to describe the core concept: Index-light. MPP row-oriented data warehouse DBMSs certainly have indices, which are occasionally even used. But the approaches to database design that are supported or make sense to use are simply different for DATAllegro, Netezza (the most extreme example of all) or Teradata than for Oracle or Microsoft. And the differences are all in the direction of less indexing.
Here’s an excerpt from the paper. Please pardon the formatting; it reads better in the actual .PDF Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in DATAllegro, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Database theory and practice, Relational database management systems | 2 Comments »
March 21st, 2007 Curt Monash
We have lively discussions going on columnar data stores vs. vertically partitioned row stores. Part is visible in the comment thread to a recent post. Other parts come in private comments from Stuart Frost of DATAllegro and Mike Stonebraker of Vertica et al.
To me, the most interesting part of what the Vertica guys are saying is twofold. One is that data compression just works better in column stores than row stores, perhaps by a factor of 3, because “the next thing in storage is the same data type, rather than a different one.” Frankly, although Mike has said this a couple of times, I haven’t understood yet why row stores can’t be smart enough to compress just as well. Yes, it’s a little harder than it would be in a columnar system; but I don’t see why the challenge would be insuperable.
The second part is even cooler, namely the claim that column stores allow the processors to operate directly on compressed data. But once again, I don’t see why row stores can’t do that too. For example, when you join via bitmapped indices, exactly what you’re doing is operating on highly-compressed data.
Want to continue getting great research about DBMS, analytics, and other technologies related to data management? Then subscribe to our feed, by RSS/Atom or e-mail! We recommend taking the integrated feed for all our blogs, but blog-specific ones are also easily available.
Posted in Columnar architectures, DATAllegro, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Database compression, Relational database management systems, Vertica Systems | 1 Comment »
March 19th, 2007 Curt Monash
Stuart Frost of DATAllegro offered an interesting counter today to columnar DBMS architectures — vertical partitioning. In particular, he told me of a 120 terabyte (growing soon to 250 terabytes) call data record database, in which a few key columns were separated out. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Columnar architectures, DATAllegro, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Kognitio and WX2, Relational database management systems, Vertica Systems | 9 Comments »
March 16th, 2007 Curt Monash
IBM sent over a bunch of success stories recently, with DB2’s new aggressive compression prominently mentioned. Mike Stonebraker made a big point of Vertica’s compression when last we talked; other column-oriented data warehouse/mart software vendors (e.g. Kognitio, SAP, Sybase) get strong compression benefits as well. Other data warehouse/mart specialists are doing a lot with compression too, although some of that is governed by please-don’t-say-anything-good-about-us NDA agreements.
Compression is important for at least three reasons:
- It saves disk space, which is a major cost issue in data warehousing.
- It saves I/O, which is the major performance issue in data warehousing.
- In well-designed systems, it can actually make on-chip execution faster, because the gains in memory speed and movement can exceed the cost of actually packing/unpacking the data. (Or so I’m told; I haven’t aggressively investigated that claim.)
When evaluating data warehouse/mart software, take a look at the vendor’s compression story. It’s important stuff.
EDIT: DATAllegro claims in a note to me that they get 3-4x storage savings via compression. They also make the observation that fewer disks ==> fewer disk failures, and spin that — as it were 
— into a claim of greater reliability.
Posted in DATAllegro, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Database compression, IBM and DB2, Relational database management systems, SAP, BI Accelerator, and MaxDB, Vertica Systems | 2 Comments »
March 8th, 2007 Curt Monash
Ingres has non-trivial resources – 300 employees, 10,000 “real” customers, and some additional large number of installations embedded in CA products. It has a fairly pure support-only open source revenue model, although there may be exceptions to that in cases such as the DATAllegro relationship.
Should anybody care?
Yes and no. To compete effectively in the mid-range OLTP relational database management system market, you need a product that’s much easier to administer than Oracle, and preferably easier even than Microsoft SQL*Server. Ingres doesn’t meet that standard. Until it does, it probably won’t have much of a market outside its current installed base. But some of Ingres’s strategies and directions are pretty clever, and may be interesting to people who’d never actually consider using Ingres technology. Specifically, Ingres has plans in the areas of appliances and database services, two subjects that are close to my heart.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in DATAllegro, Ingres, Relational database management systems | 2 Comments »
March 6th, 2007 Curt Monash
I haven’t been as clear as I could have been in explaining why I think MPP/shared-nothing beats SMP/shared-everything. The answer is in a short white paper, currently bottlenecked at the sponsor’s end of the process. Here’s an excerpt from the latest draft:
There are two ways to make more powerful computers:
1. Use more powerful parts – processors, disk drives, etc.
2. Just use more parts of the same power.
Of the two, the more-parts strategy much more cost-effective. Smaller* parts are much more economical, since the bigger the part, the harder and more costly it is to avoid defects, in manufacturing and initial design alike. Consequently, all high-end computers rely on some kind of parallel processing.
*As measured in terms of capacity, transistor count, etc., not physical size.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in DATAllegro, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Database theory and practice, Microsoft and SQL*Server, Netezza, Oracle, Relational database management systems, Teradata, Vertica Systems | 6 Comments »