April 29th, 2008 Curt Monash
Mark Logic* has an interesting, complex story. They sell a technology stack based on an XML DBMS with text search designed in from the get go. They usually want to be known as a “content” technology provider rather than a DBMS vendor, but not quite always.
*Note: Product name = MarkLogic, company name = Mark Logic.
I’ve agreed to do a white paper and webcast for Mark Logic (sponsored, of course). But before I start serious work on those, I want to blog based on what I know. As always, feedback is warmly encouraged.
Some of the big differences between MarkLogic and other DBMS are:
-
MarkLogic’s primary DML/DDL (Data Manipulation/Description Language) is XQuery. Indeed, Mark Logic is in many ways the chief standard-bearer for pure XQuery, as opposed to SQL/XQuery hybrids.
-
MarkLogic’s XML processing is much faster than many alternatives. A client told me last year that – in an application that had nothing to do with MarkLogic’s traditional strength of text search – MarkLogic’s performance beat IBM DB2/Viper’s by “an order of magnitude.” And I think they were using the phrase correctly (i.e., 10X or so).
-
MarkLogic indexes all kinds of entities and facts, automagically, without any schema-prebuilding. (Nor, I gather, do they depend on individual documents carrying proper DTDs.) So there actually isn’t a lot of DDL. (Mark Logic claims in one test MarkLogic had more or less 0 DDL, vs. 20,000 lines in DB2/Viper.) What MarkLogic indexes includes, as Mark Logic puts it:
-
As opposed to most extended-relational DBMS, MarkLogic indexes all kinds of information in a single, tightly integrated index. Mark Logic claims this is part of the reason for MarkLogic’s good performance, and asserts that competitors’ lack of full integration often causes overhead and/or gets in the way of optimal query plans. (For example, Mark Logic claims that Microsoft SQL Server’s optimizer is so FUBARed that it always does the text part of a search first.) Interestingly, Intersystems’ object-oriented Cache’ does pretty much the same thing.
-
MarkLogic is proud of its text search extensions to XQuery. I’ve neglected to ask how that relates to the XQuery standards process. (For example, text search wasn’t integrated into the SQL standard until SQL3.)
Other architectural highlights include:
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Data types, IBM and DB2, Mark Logic, Native XML | 1 Comment »
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 »
March 11th, 2008 Curt Monash
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.
Please sign up for our feed!
Posted in IBM and DB2, Mid-range DBMS, MySQL, Open source RDBMS, Relational database management systems, solidDB | 4 Comments »
February 20th, 2008 Curt Monash
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:
- He calls out RAM consumption as a challenge for this kind of architecture.
- 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.
Please sign up for our feed!
Posted in Cache, Database theory and practice, H-Store, IBM and DB2, Memory-centric data management, OLTP database management, Relational database management systems, solidDB | No Comments »
January 28th, 2008 Curt Monash
Question of the day #2
Who is actually using native XML?
Mark Logic is having a fine time using its native XML engine for custom publishing. One outfit I know of is using a native XML for something like web analytics, but is driving me crazy by never coming through on permission to divulge details. There’s a bit of native XML use out there supporting the insurance industry’s ACORD standard.
And after that I quickly run out of examples of native XML use. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Data types, IBM and DB2, Mark Logic, Microsoft and SQL*Server, Native XML, Oracle | 1 Comment »
January 22nd, 2008 Curt Monash
For very high-end applications, the list of viable database management systems is short. Scalability can be a problem. (The rankings of most scalable alternatives differ in the OLTP and data warehouse realms.) Extreme levels of security can be had from only a few DBMS. (Oracle would have you believe there’s only one choice.) And if you truly need 99.99% uptime, there only are a few DBMS you even should consider.
But for most applications at any enterprise – and for all applications at most enterprises – super high-end DBMS aren’t required. There are relatively few applications that wouldn’t run perfectly well on PostgreSQL or EnterpriseDB today. Ingres and Progress OpenEdge aren’t far behind (they’re a little lacking in datatype support). Ditto Intersystems Cache’, although the nonrelational architecture will be off-putting to many. And to varying degrees, you can also do fine with MySQL, Pervasive PSQL, MaxDB, or a variety of other products – or for that matter with the cheap or free crippled versions of Oracle, SQL Server, DB2, and Informix.
What’s more, these mid-range database management systems can have significant advantages over their high-end brethren. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in EnterpriseDB and Postgres Plus, IBM and DB2, Ingres, Intersystems and Cache', Microsoft and SQL*Server, Mid-range DBMS, MySQL, Open source RDBMS, Oracle, Pervasive Software, PostgreSQL, Progress, Apama, and DataDirect, Relational database management systems, SAP, BI Accelerator, and MaxDB | 14 Comments »
January 16th, 2008 Curt Monash
As previously noted, I’ve been writing about an Oracle/BEA merger since 2002. So like many observers, I find I have little more to say on the subject. Let’s go straight to the bullet points: Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in HP and Neoview, IBM and DB2, Oracle, Oracle TimesTen, SAP, BI Accelerator, and MaxDB | 1 Comment »
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 21st, 2007 Curt Monash
IBM is acquiring Solid Information Technology, makers of solidDB. Some quick comments:
- solidDB is actually a very interesting hybrid disk/in-memory memory-centric database management system. However, the press release announcing the deal makes it sound as if solidDB is in-memory only.
- That strongly suggests that IBM is buying Solid mainly to compete with Oracle TimesTen. As of last June, solidDB was already IBM’s TimesTen answer via a partnership; this deal just solidifies that arrangement.
- This probably isn’t good news for Solid’s MySQL engine. That’s a pity, since solidDB technically has the potential to be the best MySQL engine around.
- Notwithstanding IBM’s presumed intentions, Solid’s main market success historically is as an embedded system in telecommunications equipment, network software, and similar systems.
- Last year I wrote a white paper on memory-centric data management, showcasing four products. IBM now has bought two of them, namely Solid’s and Applix’s (via Cognos).
- Comparisons to IBM’s embedded Java DBMS Cloudscape are pointless. That’s just a failed product vs. solidDB or Sybase SQL Anywhere, and IBM long ago cut its losses.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Cognos and Applix TM1, IBM and DB2, Memory-centric data management, OLTP database management, Sybase, solidDB | 3 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 12th, 2007 Curt Monash
Analyst conference calls about merger announcements are generally pretty boring. Indeed, the companies involved tend to feel they are legally barred from saying anything interesting, by mandate of both the antitrust regulators and the SEC.
Still, such calls are joyful events, full of strategic happy talk. If one is really lucky, there may a virtuouso tap dancing exhibition as well. On today’s IBM/Cognos call, Cognos CEO Rob Ashe was asked whether he thought Cognos’ independence or lack thereof was as important today as he said it was after SAP announced its BOBJ takeover. Without missing a beat, he responded that there were two kinds of openness:
- Database openness (not important)
- ERP/business process openness (indeed important)
Hmm. I’m not so sure I agree. To begin with, there aren’t just two major points of potential integration. There’s also a whole lot of middleware: obviously data integration, but also app servers, portals, and query execution acceleration as well. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Analytics and analytic technologies, Business Objects, Business intelligence, Cognos and Applix TM1, IBM and DB2, Memory-centric data management, ParAccel, SAP, BI Accelerator, and MaxDB | No Comments »
November 12th, 2007 Curt Monash
Some quick thoughts in connection with IBM’s just-announced plans to acquire Cognos.
1. Ironically, IBM just put out a press release describing a strong-sounding reseller partnership with Business Objects. The deal specified that
Business Objects will begin distributing and reselling IBM DB2 Warehouse with Business Objects XI and CFO Performance Management solutions. In addition, IBM will include a starter edition of Business Objects XI with DB2 and DB2 Warehouse.
Jeff Jones of IBM told me that they also had a partnership with Cognos, but with different details. I guess Cognos will eventually take over that deal, which is an obvious negative for Business Objects.
2. More generally, I can see where Cognos will now likely gain share at DB2 sites, and IBM/Ascential at Cognos sites. I can’t as easily see why Cognos would now lose share at Oracle or Teradata or Netezza sites, or why Ascential would lose share at SAP/BOBJ sites. So there seem to be some genuine synergies here, albeit perhaps modest ones.
3. Thus, I think the negatives in this deal for the remaining independents (Microstrategy, Information Builders, Informatica, etc.) will somewhat outweigh the positives.
4. I’m not a big fan of Cognos’ management, former CEO Ron Zambonini and a few other freethinkers excepted. So from that standpoint I don’t think they have a lot to lose being taken over by Big Blue.
5. Obviously, with most of the dominoes now fallen, the big question is about the future of BI as it – potentially – gets integrated into much larger enterprise technology suites. And I think the answer to that depends a lot more on technology than most people seem to realize. More on that subject later, but here’s one hint:
I think fixing the disappointment that is dashboards will involve taking query volumes up by at least 2 to 3 orders of magnitude. So as great as recent innovations in analytic query performance have been, I hope and trust that so far we’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg.
Links:
1. eWeek on the IBM/Business Objects deal.
2. Press release on the IBM/Business Objects deal.
3. Press release on the IBM/Cognos deal.
Technorati Tags: IBM, Cognos
Keep getting great research about business intelligence, data warehousing, and other analytic technologies. Get a FREE subscription by RSS or email!
Posted in Analytics and analytic technologies, Business Objects, Business intelligence, Cognos and Applix TM1, IBM and DB2 | 5 Comments »
October 22nd, 2007 Curt Monash
Philip Howard went to at least one conference this month I didn’t, namely IBM’s, and wrote up some highlights. As usual, he seems to have been favorably impressed.
In one note, he says that IBM is claiming a 2-5X XML performance improvement. This is a good step, since one of my clients who evaluated such engines dismissed IBM early on for being an order of magnitude too slow. That client ultimately chose Marklogic, with Cache’ having been the only other choice to make the short list.
Speaking of IBM, I flew back from the Business Objects conference next to a guy who supports IMS. He told me that IBM has bragged of an actual new customer win for IMS within the past couple of years (a large bank in China). Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Hierarchies, networks, graphs, and trees, IBM and DB2, Intersystems and Cache', Mark Logic, Native XML | No 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 9th, 2007 Curt Monash
At the Teradata show today, I talked with Mike Weber of Scorecard Systems Inc. Scorecard’s business is vertical BI for telecommunications companies to analyze call data. They support Teradata (obviously), Oracle, and Microsoft SQL*Server, with Netezza coming soon. But not DB2.
Mike says that, in ten years in this business, he’s never seen DB2. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Analytics and analytic technologies, Business intelligence, Data warehousing, IBM and DB2, Microsoft and SQL*Server, Oracle, Teradata | No Comments »
October 5th, 2007 Curt Monash
I’ve been talking a lot to text mining vendors this week, as per a series of posts over on Text Technologies. Specifically, I’ve focused on the two with exhaustive extraction strategies, namely Attensity and Clarabridge. (Exhaustive extraction is Attensity’s term for separating the linguistic-analysis part of text mining from the DBMS-based BI/analytics part.)
So I asked each of Attensity and Clarabridge the side question as to which data warehouse software or appliances they were seeing. The answers were almost identical — Oracle, Microsoft SQL*Server, Teradata, and Netezza. One also mentioned MySQL and 2 HP prospects — but the HP sites were running NonStop SQL, not NeoView. Amazingly, there were no mentions of DB2. There also weren’t any mentions of the smaller specialist startups, such as DATAllegro, Greenplum, or Vertica.
Want to continue getting great research about text mining, data warehouse appliances, and other hot analytics-related topics? Then subscribe to our comprehensive 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 Analytics and analytic technologies, Business intelligence, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Greenplum, HP and Neoview, IBM and DB2, Microsoft and SQL*Server, MySQL, Oracle, Relational database management systems, Teradata | 7 Comments »
August 12th, 2007 Curt Monash
The highest-profile applications for complex event/stream processing are probably the ones that require super-low latency, especially in financial trading. However, as I already noted in writing about StreamBase and Truviso, there are plenty of other CEP apps with less extreme latency requirements.
Commonly, these are data reduction apps – i.e., there’s a gushing stream of inputs, and the CEP engine filters and “enhances” it, so that only a small, modified subset is sent forward. In other cases, disk-based systems could do the job perfectly well from a performance standpoint, but the pattern matching and filtering requirements are just a better fit for the CEP paradigm.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Complex event/stream processing (CEP), Coral8, Hierarchies, networks, graphs, and trees, IBM and DB2, Memory-centric data management, Native XML, StreamBase | No Comments »
June 20th, 2007 Curt Monash
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.
Technorati Tags: Solid Information Technology, solidDB, DB2, TimesTen
Posted in Cache, IBM and DB2, Memory-centric data management, OLTP database management, Oracle, Oracle TimesTen, solidDB | No Comments »
June 14th, 2007 Curt Monash
I’ve been implying that the short list for native XML database engine vendors should be Mark Logic, IBM, and maybe Microsoft, on the theory that Progress and Intersystems tried the market and pulled back. Well, add Intersystems to the list, and not necessarily in last place. They’ve long had a very fast nonrelational engine in Cache’. Perhaps building Ensemble on it has induced them to sharpen up the XML capabilities again.
Anyhow, while I’m not at liberty to explain more of my reasoning (i.e., to disclose my evidence) — Cache’ should be taken seriously as an XML DBMS alternative … even if I never can seem to get a proper DBMS briefing from them (which is far from entirely being their fault).
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.
Technorati Tags: XML database, Intersystems, Cache’
Posted in Hierarchies, networks, graphs, and trees, IBM and DB2, Intersystems and Cache', Mark Logic, Microsoft and SQL*Server, Native XML, Progress, Apama, and DataDirect | 1 Comment »
June 12th, 2007 Curt Monash
ANTs Software’s primary focus isn’t really even on DBMS any more. Even so, it just announced a deal to replace Informix in a large retail chain’s in-store systems. (In its 1990s heyday, Informix wound up running in-store systems at an impressive list of major retailers. Of course, Informix was long ago acquired by IBM.)
EnterpriseDB has probably passed ANTs in the DBMS plug-compability business. And taken together they’re still pretty small. Even so, plug-compatible DBMS replacement has to be taken seriously as a (possibly) emerging trend. Economically, it makes all the sense in the world.
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 ANTs Software, EnterpriseDB and Postgres Plus, IBM and DB2, OLTP database management, Portability, transparency, and plug-compatibility, Relational database management systems | No Comments »
June 8th, 2007 Curt Monash
I was consulting recently to a client that needs to build really big relational data warehouses, and also is attracted to native XML. Naturally, I suggested they consider DB2. They immediately shot back that they were Linux-based, and didn’t think DB2 ran (or ran well) on Linux. Since IBM often leads with AIX-based offerings in its marketing and customer success stories, that wasn’t a ridiculous opinion. On the other hand, it also was very far from what I believed.
So I fired some questions at IBM,
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Data warehousing, IBM and DB2, Relational database management systems | No Comments »
May 5th, 2007 Curt Monash
In the past, when I’ve asked Jeff Jones of IBM for permission to post one of his well-written notes, his response has pretty much been “Of course! Why did you bother asking?” So this time I’m just going ahead and skipping that step. The note is about IBM’s mid-range flavor of DB2, targeted directly at MySQL.
Today, IBM announced that its popular DB2 9 Express-C software is now available with an optional low-cost yearly support subscription. DB2 Express-C has been available without license charges for downloading, application development, deployment and redistribution since January 2006. It remains available without license charges for those that do not require support. Electronic general availability of the new support option is scheduled for June 1, 2007.
The new DB2 Express-C support option provides 24×7 product support, regular fixpacks and upgrade protection. In addition, this option provides support for high availability clustering, offsite disaster recovery, and data replication with remote data servers without additional charge.
Background
– Subscriptions are priced at $2,995 (U.S.) per server per year. This is identical to MySQL Enterprise Gold, but DB2 Express-C includes features not found in MySQL including pureXML support, high availability clustering (MySQL Cluster support costs extra), autonomic features, and no-charge administration and development tools. Unlike the free offerings from Microsoft and Oracle, DB2 Express-C does not place limits on the size or number of databases managed. With up to 4 GB of memory and up to 2 processors, DB2 Express-C can run on more powerful servers, can scale higher and can perform faster than its competitors.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in IBM and DB2, Mid-range DBMS, MySQL, OLTP database management, Relational database management systems | No Comments »
April 26th, 2007 Curt Monash
Reuters wrote a really stupid article on the MySQL/IBM deal, and some bloggers have gotten over-excited as well. Even the not-ignorant among these seem to be overlooking one or more of the following points:
- The IBM/MySQL deal is just for the iSeries.
- The iSeries is the successor to the AS/400 and System 38, and thus is in a decades-old family of machines that have some weirdnesses in their DBMS support.
-
In particular, DB2 on the iSeries isn’t the same thing as DB2 on other boxes, although multiple DB2s do at least nominally run there.
So while it’s interesting and nice, this deal isn’t that relevant to IBM’s mainstream software business at all.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in IBM and DB2, Mid-range DBMS, MySQL, OLTP database management, Open source RDBMS, Relational database management systems | 3 Comments »
April 18th, 2007 Curt Monash
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 the rest of this entry »
Posted in EnterpriseDB and Postgres Plus, IBM and DB2, Ingres, Intersystems and Cache', Microsoft and SQL*Server, Mid-range DBMS, MySQL, OLTP database management, Open source RDBMS, Oracle, Progress, Apama, and DataDirect, Relational database management systems, Sybase, solidDB | 7 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 »