Analysis of Infobright and its MySQL-based data warehouse DBMS formerly known as Brighthouse. Related subjects include:
This year’s Gartner Magic Quadrant for Data Warehouse Database Management Systems is out.* I shall now comment, just as I did on the 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, and 2006 Gartner Data Warehouse Database Management System Magic Quadrants, to varying extents. To frame the discussion, let me start by saying:
- In general, I regard Gartner Magic Quadrants as a bad use of good research.
- Illustrating the uselessness of — or at least poor execution on — the overall quadrant metaphor, a large majority of the vendors covered are lined up near the line x = y, each outpacing the one below in both of the quadrant’s dimensions.
- I find fewer specifics to disagree with in this Gartner Magic Quadrant than in previous year’s versions. Two factors jump to mind as possible reasons:
- This year’s Gartner Magic Quadrant for Data Warehouse Database Management Systems is somewhat less ambitious than others; while it gives as much company detail as its predecessors, it doesn’t add as much discussion of overall trends. So there’s less to (potentially) disagree with.
- Merv Adrian is now at Gartner.
- Whatever the problems may be with Gartner’s approach, the whole thing comes out better than do Forrester’s failed imitations.
*As of February, 2012 — and surely for many months thereafter — Teradata is graciously paying for a link to the report.
Specific company comments, roughly in line with Gartner’s rough single-dimensional rank ordering, include: Read more
As Jacek Becla explained:
- Academic scientists like their software to be open source, for reasons that include both free-like-speech and free-like-beer.
- What’s more, they like their software to be dead-simple to administer and use, since they often lack the dedicated human resources for anything else.
Even so, I think that academic researchers, in the natural and social sciences alike, commonly overlook the wealth of commercial software that could help them in their efforts.
I further think that the commercial software industry could do a better job of exposing its work to academics, where by “expose” I mean:
- Give your stuff to academics for free.
- Call their attention to your free offering.
Reasons to do so include:
- Public benefit. Scientific research is important.
- Training future customers. There’s huge academic/commercial crossover, especially as students join the for-profit workforce.
|Categories: Business intelligence, Data warehousing, Infobright, Petabyte-scale data management, Predictive modeling and advanced analytics, Scientific research||7 Comments|
Once again, I’m working with an OLTP SaaS vendor client on the architecture for their next-generation system. Parameters include:
- 100s of gigabytes of data at first, growing to >1 terabyte over time.
- High peak loads.
- Public cloud portability (but they have private data centers they can use today).
- Simple database design — not a lot of tables, not a lot of columns, not a lot of joins, and everything can be distributed on the same customer_ID key.
- Stream the data to a data warehouse, that will grow to a few terabytes. (Keeping only one year of OLTP data online actually makes sense in this application, but of course everything should go into the DW.)
So I’m leaning to saying: Read more
|Categories: Analytic technologies, Cloud computing, Clustering, Data warehousing, dbShards and CodeFutures, Facebook, Infobright, MySQL, OLTP, Open source, Parallelization, Software as a Service (SaaS), Solid-state memory||13 Comments|
I met with the Hadapt guys today. I think I can be a bit crisper than before in positioning Hadapt and its use cases, namely:
- Hadapt is additional software on a cluster that also runs fully functional Hadoop/HDFS. (Cloudera Hadoop more than straight-from-Apache Hadoop to date, but that’s not a requirement.)
- The cluster also runs a DBMS on every node, such as PostgreSQL or one of Infobright/Vectorwise.
- Hadapt’s software manages parallel SQL queries by distributing them to the DBMS living on each node. Hadapt says that the resulting query performance far outshines Hive’s.
- Hadapt further says that, by exploiting the partner DBMS, its SQL functionality outpaces Hive’s as well.
- Target Hadapt use cases are centered around keeping machine-generated or other poly-structured data in Hadoop, and extracting, enhancing, or otherwise deriving some of it to live in the relational store.
- In particular, Hadapt seems like an interesting choice when you want to use that relational data as you work on other data that’s still in HDFS, or if you want to keep using the relational data in other kinds of MapReduce jobs.
- That all fits well with my thoughts about the importance of derived data.
Other evolution from what I wrote about Hadapt a few months ago includes:
- Hadapt is in beta now.
- Hadapt has added adult supervision in the form of Philip Wickline, late of Endeca.
In other news, Hadapt is our newest client.
|Categories: Analytic technologies, Cloudera, Data models and architecture, Data warehousing, Hadapt, Hadoop, Infobright, MapReduce, Open source, PostgreSQL, SQL/Hadoop integration, VectorWise||Leave a Comment|
Analytic data management technology has blossomed, leading to many questions along the lines of “So which products should I use for which category of problem?” The old EDW/data mart dichotomy is hopelessly outdated for that purpose, and adding a third category for “big data” is little help.
Let’s try eight categories instead. While no categorization is ever perfect, these each have at least some degree of technical homogeneity. Figuring out which types of analytic database you have or need — and in most cases you’ll need several — is a great early step in your analytic technology planning. Read more
Last April, I asked some columnar DBMS vendors to share customer metrics. They answered, but it took until now to iron out a couple of details. Overall, the answers are pretty impressive. Read more
Infobright is announcing its 4.0 release, with imminent availability. In marketing and product alike, Infobright is betting the farm on machine-generated data. This hasn’t been Infobright’s strategy from the getgo, but it is these days, with pretty good focus and commitment. While some fraction of Infobright’s customer base is in the Sybase-IQ-like data mart market — and indeed Infobright put out a customer-win press release in that market a few days ago — Infobright’s current customer targets seem to be mainly:
- Web companies, many of which are already MySQL users.
- Telecommunication and similar log data, especially in OEM relationships.
- Trading/financial services, especially at mid-tier companies.
Key aspects of Infobright 4.0 include: Read more
|Categories: Data warehousing, Database compression, Infobright, Investment research and trading, Log analysis, Open source, Telecommunications, Web analytics||8 Comments|
Over a 24 hour or so period, Daniel Abadi, Dmitriy Ryaboy and Randolph Pullen all remarked on MySQL’s lack of hash joins. (It relies on nested loops instead, which were state-of-the-art technology around the time of the Boris Yeltsin administration.) This led me to wonder — why is this not a problem for Infobright?
Per Infobright chief scientist Dominik Slezak, the answer is
Infobright perform joins using its own optimization/execution layers (that actually include hash join algorithms and advanced knowledge-grid-based nested loop optimizations in particular).
Edit: This disclosure has been superseded by a March, 2012 version.
From time to time, I disclose our vendor client lists. Another iteration is below. To be clear:
- This is a list of Monash Advantage members.
- All our vendor clients are Monash Advantage members, unless …
- … we work with them primarily in their capacity as technology users. (A large fraction of our user clients happen to be SaaS vendors.)
- We do not usually disclose our user clients.
- We do not usually disclose our venture capital clients, nor those who invest in publicly-traded securities.
- Included in the list below are two expired Monash Advantage members who haven’t said they will renew, as mentioned in my recent post on analyst bias. (You can probably imagine a couple of reasons for that obfuscation.)
With that said, our vendor client disclosures at this time are:
- Aster Data
- SAND Technology
- Schooner Information Technology
Edit: Comments on the February, 2012 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Data Warehouse Database Management Systems — and on the companies reviewed in it — are now up.
The Gartner 2010 Data Warehouse Database Management Systems Magic Quadrant is out. I shall now comment, just as I did to varying degrees on the 2009, 2008, 2007, and 2006 Gartner Data Warehouse Database Management System Magic Quadrants.
Note: Links to Gartner Magic Quadrants tend to be unstable. Please alert me if any problems arise; I’ll edit accordingly.
In my comments on the 2008 Gartner Data Warehouse Database Management Systems Magic Quadrant, I observed that Gartner’s “completeness of vision” scores were generally pretty reasonable, but their “ability to execute” rankings were somewhat bizarre; the same remains true this year. For example, Gartner ranks Ingres higher by that metric than Vertica, Aster Data, ParAccel, or Infobright. Yet each of those companies is growing nicely and delivering products that meet serious cutting-edge analytic DBMS needs, neither of which has been true of Ingres since about 1987. Read more