• 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.

*At the time of this posting, I don’t yet have a link. However, I expect that to change quickly, and I plan to edit this paragraph accordingly. If nothing else, I hope people will drop links into the comment thread.

Specific company comments, roughly in line with Gartner’s rough single-dimensional rank ordering, include:

• The Gartner Magic Quadrant’s comments on Teradata seem pretty fair. I don’t think I’m much in disagreement when I say:
  • Teradata has the richest, most mature analytic DBMS offering.
  • Teradata has an outstanding track record both for managing large data volumes and for high-concurrency mixed workloads.
  • Aster Data was a cool Teradata acquisition, even if Teradata/Aster synergies or integration have been nominal to date.
  • Teradata still needs to get out of its own way in marketing, positioning, packaging, and/or defining its premium-priced system vs. its more moderately-priced alternatives. Indeed, as necessary as this approach may have been to fending off encroachments by Netezza and others, what Teradata really needs to do is evolve to a more pick-your-own-node-combination mix-match kind of offering.
• Gartner has talked with a lot of Oracle Exadata users who say that the product works; Gartner also has stopped beating Oracle up for its previous policy of almost never doing onsite POCs (Proofs of Concept); both parts of that ring true with me. But Gartner also rightly dings Oracle for various issues in cost and cumbersomeness. Overall, while I agree there are organizations for which Oracle should indeed be a top-ranked choice, there are many others who shouldn’t put Oracle on their short list.
• Third in the Gartner MQ rankings is IBM.
  • Gartner gets so caught up in reciting the names of various IBM product offerings that it neglects to say much good about DB2 itself. (I tend to have a similar problem.)
  • But Gartner does mention concurrency as a strength. I agree, especially if we presume that that was a reference to DB2 rather than Netezza.
  • Gartner cites Netezza’s post-acquisition annual growth rate as 30%. Gartner seems to think this is a good number. I disagree, but in Netezza’s defense, it has had to endure IBM’s post-acquisition on-boarding process.
• Arguably fourth in the Gartner Data Warehouse Magic Quadrant rankings is EMC/Greenplum.
  • In general, Gartner likes the taste of Greenplum Kool-Aid.
  • Gartner neglects to ding Greenplum for concurrency challenges, which I view as an oversight given Gartner’s general stress on that area.
  • Gartner does ding Greenplum for support challenges.
  • Gartner neglects to praise Greenplum for true hybrid row/columnar data management, a feature shared by Teradata and Vertica, among others, but not by Oracle, DB2, or Netezza.
  • Gartner located a half-petabyte Greenplum database. This doesn’t surprise me, even though Greenplum has frequently made exaggerated claims about large-size database successes in the past.
  • Gartner reports a >400 figure for Greenplum customers, which is plausible.
• In its first deviation from strict one-dimensional rank ordering, the Gartner Magic Quadrant ranks Sybase ahead of Greenplum in completeness of vision but behind in “ability to execute”.
  • If that were the other way around, it might make more sense. Greenplum promises anything and everything you might ever want for analytic data management or the associated analysis; but Sybase has vastly more analytic DBMS users than Greenplum does, running a variety of demanding workloads.
  • Gartner appears to think that Sybase IQ requires less database administration than I do.
  • Gartner seems concerned that SAP will position HANA and Sybase ASE as, between them, the only DBMS you’ll ever need, casting doubt on Sybase IQ’s future. I wouldn’t worry about that if you have a problem you want to solve today.
• The Gartner Magic Quadrant for Data Warehouse Database Management Systems ranks Microsoft sixth overall, despite noting that there isn’t a single production reference for Microsoft’s Parallel Data Warehouse. In support of this ranking, it for example cites the compression feature, which distinguishes Microsoft SQL Server from no other product on the list except Kognitio. If you have such an undemanding data warehousing problem that many different analytic DBMS could meet your needs, there’s a good chance Microsoft SQL Server can also do the job; and if you’ve bought into the Microsoft technology stack, you might as well keep going down that path. Otherwise, I don’t know why somebody should adopt Microsoft’s offering at this time.
• Seventh along the main diagonal path in the Gartner Magic Quadrant is HP Vertica. I’d rank Vertica higher than that, but in fairness I note two execution concerns. First, HP has a lousy track record, both in acquisitions and in data warehousing/analytics. Second, Vertica is bad about answering my email. Anyhow, Gartner doesn’t seem to have given Vertica credit either for its full customer count or for the multiple petabyte-scale databases Vertica runs.
• 1010data is an outlier, with Gartner noting that it only partly fits in with other “Data Warehousing Database Management” companies, and hence kind of confessing that 1010data on the Magic Quadrant is somewhat arbitrary. Stuff like that is bound to happen, given the inherent difficulties of defining market categories. Anyhow, my thoughts on 1010data include:
  • I’m nervous about the fact that 1010data doesn’t actually control its own DBMS technology, but rather relies on old code from the small private company KX Systems.
  • There are three main reasons to consider 1010data:
    • You want to enter the data mart outsourcing business in a casual way, and you like its SaaS offering.
    • You want to engage in stakeholder-facing analytics in a casual way, and you like its SaaS offering.
    • You love 1010data’s particular set of interactive analytic features and performance.
• Back to the main path winding along the Gartner Magic Quadrant main diagonal — next up is ParAccel. While I question some of the peripheral comments, I agree with Gartner’s core messages that:
  • ParAccel, the product, is blazingly fast in certain use cases.
  • ParAccel, the company, is dangerously small.
• Eighth on the Gartner MQ’s main path is Kognitio. This is too high. Kognitio positions itself as offering in-memory DBMS, yet stubbornly refuses to do any kind of data compression. That’s an awful combination of choices. As for using Kognitio’s data warehousing SaaS offering — why would you do that, when more modern products are available on a SaaS/cloud basis as well?
• Ninth in the Gartner Magic Quadrant main rankings is SAND.
  • The SAND section is not a triumph of Gartner accuracy. For example:
    • Gartner completely missed the errors in SAND’s reported customer counts.
    • Gartner refers to SAND as being “in existence for approximately nine years”, which is too low by at least a factor of 2.
    • Gartner says “SAND is a privately held company”, even though Merv knows better than that.
  • Otherwise, Gartner’s opinion on SAND seems to boil down to “Interesting technology and ideas, but dangerously small company.” I agree.
• Tenth and too low in the Gartner MQ main rankings is Infobright.
  • At least by some metrics (e.g. customer count), Infobright isn’t as dangerously small as ParAccel, SAND, Kognitio, et al.
  • That said, Infobright is small and focused on machine-generated data. So I wouldn’t be confident in Infobright’s future technology path for human-generated data use cases.
  • Infobright’s performance is uneven — blazing in cases where the Knowledge Grid helps, but not necessarily stellar by analytic DBMS standards when full table scans are called for.
  • I agree with Gartner that the possibility of Oracle/MySQL future shenanigans is a concern. But while the energy behind MySQL forking efforts doesn’t seem too great right now, I’d expect them to revive and offer a successful escape path if it seemed Oracle was going to indeed play hardball.
  • Also, given that it’s already an open source vendor, there are various kinds of assurances Infobright could give that would also help alleviate customer concerns.
• Actian, formerly Ingres, took a big tumble in Gartner’s rankings versus last year, when I simply wrote “What Gartner said in connection with Ingres is too inaccurate to deserve detailed attention.” I’m even a little harsher about Ingres/Actian’s DBMS products and prospects than Gartner is, but at least now we’re in the same ballpark.
• Along with Infobright, ParAccel, and SAND, Exasol appears to be another of the “good columnar technology/small company” crowd. As with other such products, one should be careful about fit-and-finish features that are missing today, as there is no assurance they’ll be added in a timely manner going forward.
• illuminate Solutions, which was on last year’s Gartner list, now appears to be an ex-company.

• Bigness — Volume, Velocity, size
• Structure — Variety, Variability, Complexity

given that

• High-velocity “big data” problems are usually high-volume as well.*
• Variety, variability, and complexity all relate to the simply-structured/poly-structured distinction.

But the conflation should stop there.

*Low-volume/high-velocity problems are commonly referred to as “event processing” and/or “streaming”.

When people claim that bigness and structure are the same issue, they oversimplify into mush. So I think we need four pieces of terminology, reflective of a 2×2 matrix of possibilities. For want of better alternatives, my suggestions are:

• Relational big data is data of high volume that fits well into a relational DBMS.
• Multi-structured big data is data of high volume that doesn’t fit well into a relational DBMS. Alternative: Poly-structured big data.
• Conventional relational data is data of not-so-high volume that fits well into a relational DBMS. Alternatives: Ordinary/normal/smaller relational data.
• Smaller poly-structured data is data for which dynamic schema capabilities are important, but which doesn’t rise to “big data” volume.

Notes on all this include:

• “Relational big data” is commonly what you need a scalable analytic relational DBMS for. But there are non-analytic use cases as well.
• The paradigmatic example of “multi-structured big data” is log files. Thus, multi-structured big data is commonly what you need a big bit bucket for.
• One might want to equate non-analytic relational big data technology to “NewSQL”. However, I’m struggling to think of a database size range in which the entire NewSQL industry can match Oracle’s market share alone.
• One might want to equate non-analytic multi-structured big data technology to “NoSQL”. However:
  • “NoSQL” is also used to encompass not-so-big-data use cases, such as prototyping in MongoDB.
  • “NoSQL” has non-ACID/low(er)-data-integrity connotations that aren’t appropriate for all non-relational systems.
• Up to a point, you can analyze relational big data in a conventional relational DBMS, but an analytic RDBMS will usually win on TCO (Total Cost of Ownership). In particular, reasonable thresholds for moving an analytic database off Oracle might be:
  • 1-2 terabytes if you’ve never bought anything past Oracle Standard Edition.
  • 5-10 terabytes if you’re already paying for Oracle Enterprise Edition.
  • A lot higher than that if you actually find Oracle Exadata to be cost-effective.
• Depending on how big one acknowledges as “big”, the market share leader in “big bit bucket” use cases is either Splunk or Hadoop.
• If we look at multi-structured big data management overall, MarkLogic joins the list of market share contenders, as do various NoSQL alternatives.
• It is wrong to say that the large web companies invented “big data” technology. But it is more reasonable to say they invented much of “multi-structured big data” management. In particular (and this is just a partial list), Google, Amazon, Yahoo, Facebook, et al. can reasonably be credited with Hadoop, Cassandra, HBase and various predecessors to same.

• “Deliver products that really meet customers’ desires and needs.”
• “Successfully convince them that you’re doing so …”
• “… at an attractive overall cost.”

Vendors mentioned here are Oracle, SAP, HP, and IBM. Anybody smaller got left out due to the length of this post. Among the bigger omissions were:

• salesforce.com (multiple subjects).
• SAS HPA.
• The evolution of Hadoop.

A (lingering) issue for SAP and Oracle alike

As I noted in January of this year, integration of business intelligence into operational apps is making very slow progress. Even so, it’s a huge part of the apparent strategy at SAP and Oracle alike, as well it should be. Much of the benefit from automating routine desk work has already happened. The areas ripest for exploitation are the ones where analytics are part of the equation.

Given the lack of tangible progress, why do I think this is a genuine area of Oracle and SAP emphasis? Three reasons of many are:

• Why else did SAP buy Business Objects?
• If they’re not trying to integrate operational apps and analytics, why else does SAP’s emphasis on HANA make sense?
• Without business intelligence in the picture, how does Oracle’s integrated-stack story promise any direct user benefits?*

*As opposed to IT concerns — integration, administration, TCO (Total Cost of Ownership), etc.

After so many years of disappointment, I’m not going to forecast 2012 as a pivotal year for the integration of business intelligence into operational applications. But if one of SAP or Oracle ever does get a significant BI/operational app integration advantage over the other, it could be a major competitive advantage in those application market segments that are still up for grabs. It also is an opportunity for both vendors to gain BI market share in their respective application customer bases.

A more urgent issue for SAP

SAP has put huge amounts of credibility on the line for HANA, the integration of two different and not particularly mature in-memory database technologies. So far, it is difficult to find evidence that HANA is robust enough for widespread adoption. Whether or not SAP can fix that is a huge open question, which could have significant impact on the course of several technology areas: applications, business intelligence, in-memory DBMS, and maybe even hardware.

Based on current information, which is admittedly partial, I’m a short-term pessimist on HANA. Longer-term, I’m on record as saying that traditional databases will eventually wind up in RAM. SAP will surely get that technology right some day, whether or not the way it does so has anything to do with present-day HANA code.

Four more issues for Oracle

Oracle’s ambitions are near-endless, and so also therefore is its list of execution challenges. Four in the analytics area that I find particularly interesting are:

• True hybrid columnar DBMS. I was guessing that Oracle, like Teradata, would announce true hybrid columnar the week of Oracle OpenWorld. I was wrong. But if Oracle can’t bring out true hybrid columnar DBMS functionality relatively soon, Exadata will lose credibility as a competitor to more specialized analytic DBMS.
• Oracle Exalytics. With Exalytics in the mix, Oracle’s technology stack has HANA-like potential. But will Exalytics even ship in 2012? (I think so.) Will it be good for much in the first release? (I’m skeptical.)
• Oracle’s Big Data Appliance. I’m skeptical both about Oracle’s NoSQL product — a favorable InfoWorld review notwithstanding — and Hadoop appliances. But if I’m wrong, and Oracle can successfully embrace/extend the new non-relational paradigms, then it really might regain control over the evolution of data management.
• Oracle’s Endeca acquisition — will Oracle prove me wrong and integrate Endeca effectively into its overall analytic product line? If it does, we might finally see effective text (and eventually speech) navigation of enterprise software. (But as with all Oracle issues cited here, this is something that probably won’t amount to much in 2012 even if it does later go well.)

Three issues for IBM

Like Oracle, IBM is a huge company with many ambitions and hence many execution challenges. The biggest of those is surely: How effective can IBM be at selling outside its existing customer base? I don’t hear as much competitively about IBM DataStage, IBM SPSS or now IBM Netezza as I did when their vendors were independent companies. Even Cognos may not be much of an exception to the rule, although it has its own large customer base outside of IBM’s traditional one. (To lesser extents , the same is of course true of Netezza and numerous other IBM acquisitions.)

Another general issue for IBM is substantively integrating its various product lines, at least to the extent that makes sense. DB2/Netezza integration sounds good, but even that is a matter more of product marketing (the admirable part of that discipline) more than of actual technology. Other integrations (e.g. Cognos/DB2 in various bundles) have tended toward the dubious side.*

*I’m still waiting for IBM to get back to me with examples of how Cognos/DB2 joint tuning amounts to anything. It’s been more than a year, so I’m glad I didn’t hold my breath.

In a somewhat narrower vein, I wonder: Will IBM be able to gain traction for InfoSphere Streams? And if so, when and where will the traction be?

Will HP screw up Vertica?

Vertica has a very attractive product offering. It’s perhaps the most scalable analytic DBMS outside of Teradata, running on the hardware of your reasonable choice.  It’s also the one I recommend most often to clients in the 1-50 terabyte range.

So far HP doesn’t seem to have done much to leadfoot Vertica. (About all I’ve heard from competitors is that Vertica seems to have faded somewhat in the financial services market, and there could be multiple explanations if that is indeed true.) But if HP Vertica does somehow manage to botch things, opportunities will open up for a range of columnar analytic DBMS competitors.

• HP needs to make outstanding enterprise systems again.
• They fell away from that target under Mark Hurd, but they surely can hit it again, based on the remnants of DEC (Digital Equipment Corporation), Tandem, the higher-end part of Compaq, and of course the original HP systems group.
• In particular:
  • Rumors say that Oracle Exadata 1 boxes, made by HP, were much lower quality than Exadata 2 boxes made by Sun.
  • HP Neoview was a waste of good engineering talent.
  • I’d like to see a few excellent Vertica appliances.
  • I hope the SAP HANA appliances go well, whenever HANA finally becomes a serious product.
  • The general move from disk to solid-state memory should offer some opportunities.

We estimate a price point of $100K-$200K, well below Exadata prices of $500K-$2.5M.

and

The Exadata could fit under a desk;

Customers wouldn’t need a database admin to maintain the Exadata environment;

The focus of the Exadata mini would be ease of management over running complex enterprise applications.

The whole thing sounds appealing, but I must confess that the idea of “zero-DBA” Oracle takes me aback. It might look OK at demo time, but I have trouble imagining it working in live production situations.

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. 

Enterprise data warehouse (Full or partial)

• Kinds of data likely to be included: All, but especially operational
• Likely use styles: All
• Canonical example: Central EDW for a big enterprise
• Stresses: Concurrency, reliability, workload management

The enterprise data warehouse (EDW) ideal says that you copy all your data into one place, and drive all decision-making from there. Full EDWs are pipedreams. Still, a partial EDW makes sense for most large enterprises, and many indeed already have one. The first product lines to consider for classical EDWs are Teradata, DB2, Exadata, and maybe Microsoft SQL Server, especially if you’re going to stress concurrency and/or operational use cases.

Traditional data mart

• Kinds of data likely to be included: All
• Likely use styles: Business intelligence, budgeting/consolidation, investigative
• Examples: Reporting servers, planning/consolidation servers, anything MOLAP, etc.
• Stresses: Performance, concurrency, TCO

Whether or not you have something like an enterprise data warehouse, it’s common to have lighter-weight data marts as well. A traditional data mart might drive reports and dashboards. Or it might be specialized for budgeting, planning, and/or consolidation.  Some investigative analytics may be in the mix as well.

Any DBMS that can support an EDW can also support a data mart, but it may not be the most cost-effective way to do so. Columnar DBMS might have more attractive performance and TCO (Total Cost of Ownership); the same goes for Netezza. Some of them — e.g. Sybase IQ and Vertica — have excellent track records in concurrent usage as well. Ted Codd pushed what amounts to MOLAP (Multidimensional OnLine Analytic Processing) systems for these use cases. But relational DBMS commonly do a better job, which is one reason most major MOLAP products have wound up at RDBMS companies.

Investigative data mart — agile

• Kinds of data likely to be included: All, especially customer-centric
• Likely use styles: Investigative
• Canonical example: A few analysts getting a few TB to examine
• Stresses: Ease of setup/load, ease of admin, price/performance

Besides the traditional data mart, there are at least two other kinds. Both are focused on investigative analytics, but they’re differentiated by database size.

If you have just a few analysts,* looking at no more than a few terabytes of data (perhaps even just some gigabytes) — and if that data is “single-subject” and fairly homogenous — your watchwords should be “cheap”, “easy”, and “fast”. You don’t need to invest in much hardware, in expensive software, in much administrative effort (the analysts can be their own DBAs),  nor should you endure much set-up time. Just grab a product, grab some data, and start running queries (or extracts into the statistical tool of your choice).

*If you have dozens or even hundreds of analysts hitting the same database, you’re probably back to the more concurrency-oriented scenarios outlined above.

Infobright is often cost-effective among columnar analytic DBMS. Other vendors might cut you a price break as well. If you have multiple terabytes of data, don’t rule out Netezza’s lowest-end products (even if they’d really rather sell you something bigger). Or, if you’re in the sub-terabyte range, maybe you can get by with an in-memory BI tool such as QlikView, and not do anything special on the DBMS side at all.

Investigative data mart — big

• Kinds of data likely to be included: All, especially customer-centric, logs, financial trade, scientific
• Likely use styles: Investigative
• Canonical example: Single-subject 20 TB – 20 PB relational database
• Stresses: Performance, scale-out, analytic functionality

But if you’re looking at tens of terabytes of relational data, or even more, you really do have a “big data” problem. Performance and scalability are major challenges, usually best addressed by MPP (Massively Parallel Processing) systems, such as Netezza, Vertica, Aster Data, ParAccel, Teradata, or Greenplum. Performance POCs (Proofs Of Concept) are a big part of the buying process. Vendor price negotiations are crucial too.

Actually, in the low tens of terabytes you might be able to get away with a shared-disk system that has excellent compression — e.g., columnar products like Sybase IQ, Infobright, or SAND, rather than just Vertica and ParAccel.

Assuming you have affordable, scalable query performance, the competitive differentiator can switch to additional analytic functionality. Aster, Netezza, ParAccel, Vertica, and Greenplum either offer full analytic platforms, or seem to be on the path to doing so. Teradata, which now owns Aster Data, offers substantial built-in analytic capability in its traditional products as well, and the same goes for Sybase IQ.

Continued in Part 2, where we cover some of the more difficult use cases.

Oracle disputes some common claims about its cost and pricing. In particular, Oracle software maintenance costs a fixed 22% of your annual license price, so if you get a discount on your licenses, it ripples through to your maintenance. This is true even if you have an all-you-can-eat ULA (Unlimited License Agreement).

• Based on that, Oracle contends that Exadata isn’t all that expensive if you have a suitable ULA. You have to buy the hardware and the storage software, but the database server software is effectively free. (Whether your use of additional licenses affect the price of your ULA when it comes up for renewal might, of course, be a different matter.)
• Nothing in that discussion obviates the point that if you’re just using Oracle Standard Edition, upgrading to Oracle Enterprise Edition, associated chargeable options, and/or Exadata can be seriously expensive.

Back in April, Steve Miller suggested that approximate BI could be a growing trend, gaining speed at the expense of (often false anyway) precision. That idea of course goes well with Infobright’s recent released Rough Query feature, and also with Datameer’s year-earlier pitch.

Aster Data (now a Teradata company) is positioning itself as analyzing multi-structured data — which is my second-choice term, behind the more precise but odder-sounding “poly-structured.” I hope “poly-structured” wins, and plan to keep using it myself; but I recognize that “multi-structured” may actually be the one that prevails.

Barbara Darrow wrote a great piece on Oracle Exadata pricing. Highlights include:

• Routine Oracle software discounts are high.
• Exadata discounts are higher.
• Big/referenceable customers get the best Exadata discounts. The term “extremely deep” was used. (I’ve also heard that from Oracle competitors, with the term “free” even coming up, hyperbolically or otherwise.)
• Oracle’s hardware maintenance pricing is forcing users to trash Sun gear, even when it’s working. One guy told the story of literally crying as the Sun boxes were taken away.
• Oracle’s 22% of license maintenance fee goes up to 27% after two years. I didn’t know that.

Oracle has been making considerable messaging fuss around a win in Japan, where Softbank replaced years-old Teradata systems with vastly less new Exadata gear. I blogged that this is hardly an apples-to-apples comparison. During my visit last April, Oracle pushed back, in particular pointing out that the Softbank division that awarded the deal was very separate from the one that was an Oracle reseller. But Monday Teradata shared with me a counter-pushback, asserting that during the recent worldwide recession, Softbank assigned its underemployed systems integration division to do internal projects — including the data warehouse upgrade. I.e., Teradata stands by its claim that this replacement was strongly influenced by the Softbank/Oracle partnership.

If you’re analytically inclined, Kx Systems has some interesting ideas, manifested in kdb+ and so on. A 2009 ACM article seems as good a starting point as any, the company’s website probably aside. Confusingly, Kx is small company that evidently does most of its selling through a couple of much larger partners. Also, 1010data happens to be built on an older version of Kx’s technology.

• Given Oracle’s market penetration and share, it makes sense that Oracle is focused on selling add-on products to its installed base. Oracle’s three top such go-to-market emphases at the moment are:
  • Database consolidation, especially on Exadata.
  • Data warehousing, presumably on Exadata.
  • Database security, especially encryption. This is not Exadata-specific, but does exploit Intel Westmere on-chip encryption, which Oracle says allows encryption with minimal overhead. This seems to be via something called Oracle Advanced Security.
• Deleted*

*Oracle asked me to delete a point on pricing they went out of their way to make, because they are in quiet period — even though nobody said it was confidential at the time, we weren’t under NDA, and it looks like public information to me anyway. Frankly, I’m not sure I was right to comply.

Oracle also told me quite a bit about Exadata onsite POCs (Proofs of Concept) and Exadata references, but I’ll save those subjects for future posts. The same goes for workload management.

Oracle’s version names and numbers can get confusing, but it turns out that:

• Oracle 11.203 11.2.0.3 will come out this fall. Oracle 11.204 11.2.0.4 will come out a little more than a year later. After that I imagine it will be time for Oracle 12.
• The current versions of Oracle Exadata are Exadata X2-2 and Exadata X2-8.
  • Oracle Exadata 2-2 is evolutionary from prior Exadata versions, and has 8 moderately big servers per rack. It can be sliced into half- or quarter-racks.
  • Oracle Exadata 2-8, in lieu of those 8 servers, has 2 bigger SMP (Symmetric MultiProcessing) systems, each with a terabyte of RAM. You can’t slice Exadata 2-8 below full-rack size, as you’d lose redundancy among the servers.

I didn’t really understand the discussion as to why certain workloads and/or workload consolidations go better on the SMP boxes of Exadata X2-8 than the blades of Exadata X2-2, but Oracle assures me that some do. I also suspect that some Oracle customers prefer large SMP boxes for no good reason other than familiarity.

As for recent-release adoption:

• Oracle estimates that 40-50% of customers have Oracle 11g running somewhere in their shops, mainly Oracle 11g Release 2.
• All major ISVs (Independent Software Vendors) are certified on Oracle 11g, typically Oracle 11g Release 2.
• But Exadata certification is something different from Oracle 11g certification; for example, SAP certification on Exadata is still underway, targeted for some time this year.

Exadata obviously enjoys huge performance gains over existing Oracle installations for certain analytic queries, and therefore for some whole analytic workloads. Oracle has happily trumpeted these. But it turns out that Exadata’s OLTP (OnLine Transaction Processing) performance gains are less dramatic. This makes all kinds of sense, given that Oracle’s analytic query performance was in pretty bad shape pre-Exadata, while OLTP has been just fine. The range Oracle used was 2-3X OLTP performance gains vs. existing Oracle installations on several-year-old hardware. Oracle says somewhere over 50% of Exadata physical I/O* goes against flash cache in uses cases such as running Oracle’s application suite.

*Note that physical I/O may be only a small fraction of logical; e.g., SAP long ago said that >99% of SAP transactions never hit disk.

Finally, we talked about a variety of options or other related products. Highlights included:

• One piece of the Oracle security story is a new product called Oracle Database Firewall, released in January, based on an acquisition of a small startup last year. Targeted primarily at internal hackers, Oracle Database Firewall sniffs your SQL traffic for a week or so, observes what kinds of SQL statements can be expected, builds a white list accordingly, and casts a jaundiced eye on any other kind of SQL statements that come through.
• Edit: I have no idea why I was told the following, in view of a subsequent email. Oracle Active Data Guard, first introduced in the Oracle 11g code line, is the preferred way to do active-active Oracle replication. That said:
  • Not a lot of customers use Oracle Active Data Guard yet …
  • … but a considerable fraction of Exadata users are at least interested in it.
  • Some number of Oracle customers have other kinds of active-active implementation. One option is via GoldenGate.
• Oracle Cloud File Management System is an Oracle 11g feature/option that lets you managed non-Oracle data. It is related to ASM (Automatic Storage Management), which seems to have been the most popular Oracle 10g feature, and which is essential to Exadata. Oracle Cloud File Management Systems seems to be popular for consolidation uses. But it is not technically well suited to, for example, play the role of HDFS in a MapReduce implementation.
• For DBAs who care, Exadata now supports Solaris on the database server tier as well as Linux. (That would be Solaris on Intel, of course; Exadata doesn’t use Sparc.) The storage tier still runs only on a kind of embedded Linux.
• Oracle 11g Express Edition (free crippleware) just went into beta test.
• And finally, Oracle SQL Developer 3.0 features, among other things, a GUI for Oracle Data Mining, and migration tools. Sybase migration is in there now, and was enhanced for SQL Developer 3.0. Teradata migration is slated for the next release.

• Given how hard Oracle fought the antitrust authorities to keep MySQL around the time of the acquisition, we always knew they were serious about the business.
• We’ll know they’re even more serious if they buy MySQL enhancements such as Infobright, dbShards, or Schooner MySQL.
• Oracle-quality MySQL’s most obvious target is SQL Server.
• But if you’ve bought into the Windows stack, why not stay bought-in?
• MySQL vs. SQL Server competition is mainly about new applications; few users will actually switch.
• A lot of SaaS vendors use Oracle Standard Edition, and have some MySQL somewhere as well. They don’t want to pay up for Oracle Enterprise Edition or Exadata. Good MySQL could suit them.
• Mainly, I see the Short Request Processing market as being a battle between MySQL versions and NoSQL systems. (I’m a VoltDB pessimist.)

The last question was “Is there an easy shorthand to describe how Oracle DB is superior to MySQL even with these improvements?” My responses, again lightly edited, were: 

• Security.
• Scalability on a single big SMP (Symmetric MultiProcessing) box.
• Support for more datatypes.
• Data warehousing features.
• Built-in analytics beyond SQL.
• Integrated with Exadata.
• There probably are a bunch more, but those are the first ones that come to mind.
• Various features are much more mature in Oracle than in MySQL.