Greenplum update — Release 3.3 and so on

I visited Greenplum in early April, and talked with them again last night. As I noted in a separate post, there are a couple of subjects I won’t write about today. But that still leaves me free to cover a number of other points about Greenplum, including:

Read more

Yet more on MySQL forks and storage engines

The issue of MySQL forks and their possible effect on closed-source storage engine vendors continues to get attention.  The underlying question is:

Suppose Oracle wants to make life difficult for third-party storage engine vendors via its incipient control of MySQL?  Can the storage engine vendors insulate themselves from this risk by working with a MySQL fork?

Read more

First thoughts on Oracle acquiring Sun

• Wow.
• And during the week of the MySQL conference, too.
• In the must-read slide presentation, Oracle’s says all the right things about being committed to all product lines and technologies. On the whole, this is believable.
• Oracle says it’s focusing Sun hardware sales on existing Oracle/Sun customers. Makes sense.
• Oracle mentions OpenStorage prominently. Makes sense. Integrating DBMS with storage is Oracle’s high-end DBMS future.  (E.g., Exadata.)
• HP can’t be happy.
• MySQL and InnoDB are reunited.
• MySQL is apt to get decent, much as it would have under IBM.
• Even so, if you really believe in open source’s freedom, it’s time to look at PostgreSQL …
• … or EnterpriseDB’s Postgres Plus, although my recent dealings with EnterpriseDB underscore the importance of being VERY careful about counting your fingers after you shake hands with that company.
• And I wouldn’t be surprised if another shoe dropped soon on the EnterpriseDB front. (Please excuse the mixed metaphor.)
• I used to laugh at how many different app servers Sun had acquired. Oracle acquired a number too.  Together it’s quite a pile of them.
• Oracle says acquiring Java is a great big deal. I’m not sure I see why that would really be true.

More later.  I have a radio interview in a few minutes on a very different subject.

Ingres update

I talked with Ingres today. Much of the call was fluff — open-source rah-rah, plus some numbers showing purported success, but so finely parsed as to be pretty meaningless. (To Ingres’ credit, they did offer to let me talk w/ their CFO, even if they offered no promises as to whether he’d offer any more substantive information.) Highlights included:

Read more

Database implications if IBM acquires Sun

Reported or rumored merger discussions between IBM and Sun are generating huge amounts of discussion today (some links below). Here are some quick thoughts around the subject of how the IBM/Sun deal — if it happens — might affect the database management system industry.

Read more

ParAccel actually uses relatively little PostgreSQL code

I often find it hard to write about ParAccel’s technology, for a variety of reasons:

• With occasional exceptions, ParAccel is reluctant to share detailed information.
• With occasional exceptions, ParAccel is reluctant to say anything for attribution.
• In ParAccel’s version of an “agile” development approach, product details keep changing, as do plans and schedules.  (The gibe that ParAccel’s product plans are whatever their current sales prospect wants them to be — while of course highly exaggerated — isn’t wholly unfounded.)
• ParAccel has sold very few copies of its products, so it’s hard to get information from third parties.

ParAccel is quick, however, to send email if I post anything about them they think is incorrect.

All that said, I did get careless when I neglected to doublecheck something I already knew. Read more

Big scientific databases need to be stored somehow

A year ago, Mike Stonebraker observed that conventional DBMS don’t necessarily do a great job on scientific data, and further pointed out that different kinds of science might call for different data access methods. Even so, some of the largest databases around are scientific ones, and they have to be managed somehow. For example:

• Microsoft just put out an overwrought press release. The substance seems to be that Pan-STARRS — a Jim Gray legacy also discussed in an August, 2008 Computerworld article — is adding 1.4 terabytes of image data per night, and one not so new database adds 15 terabytes per year of some kind of computer simulation output used to analyze protein folding. Both run on SQL Server, of course.
• Kognitio has an astronomical database too, at Cambridge University, adding 1/2 a terabyte of data per night.
• Oracle is used for a McGill University proteonomics database called CellMapBase. A figure of 50 terabytes of “mass storage” is included, which doesn’t include tape backup and so on.
• The Large Hadron Collider, once it actually starts functioning, is projected to generate 15 petabytes of data annually, which will be initially stored on tape and then distributed to various computing centers around the world.
• Netezza is proud of its ability to serve images and the like quickly, although off the top of my head I’m not thinking of a major customer it has in that area. (But then, if you just sell software, your academic discount can approach 100%; but if like Netezza you have an actual cost of goods sold, that’s not as appealing an option.)

Long-term, I imagine that the most suitable DBMS for these purposes will be MPP systems with strong datatype extensibility — e.g., DB2, PostgreSQL-based Greenplum, PostgreSQL-based Aster nCluster, or maybe Oracle.

Has there been any progress on SAP over Postgres?

Peter Eisentraut discouragingly reported in January:

What I hear from my acquaintances at SAP, however, is this:

• SAP doesn’t need fancy database features, since the software doesn’t use them.
• Those who don’t want to buy Oracle can use MaxDB; it’s free.

PostgreSQL doesn’t support in-place upgrades, which makes it unsuitable for multiple terabyte installations typically used by SAP customers.

Has anything changed since then?

And as a trivia challenge, does anybody recognize my science fiction reference in the comment thread there? Hint: The dialogue referenced did not occur on the planet Arrakis.

Top DBMS on Linux

I was looking up George Crump’s blogs in connection with his recent post on SSDs, and I stumbled upon one that outlines at great length what features Linux backup systems should have. I won’t claim to have read it word for word, but what did catch my eye were a couple of comments on DBMS market share, which boiled down to:

1. Oracle
2. MySQL
3. PostgreSQL

Read more

Mike Stonebraker’s counterarguments to MapReduce’s popularity

In response to recent posting I’ve done about MapReduce, Mike Stonebraker just got on the phone to give me his views. His core claim, more or less, is that anything you can do in MapReduce you could already do in a parallel database that complies with SQL-92 and/or has PostgreSQL underpinnnings. In particular, Mike says: Read more

Greenplum is in the big leagues

After a March, 2007 call, I didn’t talk again with Greenplum until earlier this month. That changed fast. I flew out to see Greenplum last week and spent over a day with president/co-founder Scott Yara, CTO/co-founder Luke Lonergan, marketing VP Paul Salazar, and product management/marketing director Ben Werther. Highlights – besides some really great sushi at Sakae in Burlingame – start with an eye-opening set of customer proof points, such as: Read more

EnterpriseDB update

I had lunch today with CTO Bob Zurek of EnterpriseDB, who turns out to live in almost the same town I do (they technically separated in 1783, but share a high school today). DBMS-related highlights included:

• EnterpriseDB thinks PostgreSQL training and certification are a big deal for increasing PostgreSQL adoption.
• EnterpriseDB’s business focus right now (at least, one of them) is moving developers from interest to download to deployment and payment — i.e., the standard funnel for open source and open-source-inspired products.
• EnterpriseDB finds it important to be a good PostgreSQL community citizen. This makes a lot of sense, as EnterpriseDB doesn’t control the core PostgreSQL engine, even if it does employ some of the core PostgreSQL developers.
• But “open source” is not the same as “free”.
• I got the impression that the GridSQL technology EnterpriseDB acquired is being used to go after general read-mostly, horizontally-scaling applications (i.e., MySQL’s sweet spot). I did not get the impression, by way of contrast, that EnterpriseDB is out to play catch-up — e.g., with GreenPlum — in MPP data warehousing.
• Bob pointed out that something like “Vacuum” to clean up the database periodically is needed in a MVCC (MultiVersion Concurrency Control) engine. He thinks PostgreSQL’s autovacuum is good but not ideal.
• Bob draws this as yet another two-dimensional positioning graph, but in essence he thinks PostgreSQL and Postgres Plus are well-suited for a large space that’s above MySQL and below Oracle. I don’t think he really contradicted Kee Kwan’s opinion that there are good times to use PostgreSQL and good times to use MySQL.
• I was wrong when I previously said EnterpriseDB now offers MySQL portability. It just offers MySQL migration.
• The Elastra/EnterpriseDB cloud offering isn’t generally available yet.
• Stay tuned for developments in replication/high availability.

Read more

Microsoft is buying DATAllegro

I’ve long argued that:

• Oracle and Microsoft are doomed in the data warehouse market unless they acquire MPP/shared-nothing data warehouse DBMS and/or data warehouse appliances.
• DATAllegro is the ideal acquisition for either of them.

Microsoft has now validated my claim by agreeing to buy DATAllegro. As you probably know, we’ve been covering DATAllegro extensively, as per the links listed below.

Basic deal highlights include:

Read more

Pushback on the PostgreSQL vs. MySQL comparison

It should come as no surprise that not everybody agrees with EnterpriseDB’s views on the PostgreSQL/MySQL comparison. In particular, the High Availability MySQL blog offers a detailed rebuttal post, with more in the comment thread. According to MySQL fans, EnterpriseDB got its facts wrong on several matters regarding MySQL and InnoDB, especially in the areas of triggers and locking. And of course they disagree with EnterpriseDB’s general conclusion.

PostgreSQL vs. MySQL, as per EnterpriseDB

EnterpriseDB put out a white paper arguing for the superiority of PostgreSQL over MySQL, even without EnterpriseDB’s own Postgres Plus extensions. Highlights of EnterpriseDB’s opinion include:

• EnterpriseDB asserts that MyISAM is the only MySQL storage engine with decent performance.
• EnterpriseDB then bashes MyISAM for all sorts of well-deserved reasons, especially ACID-noncompliance.
• EnterpriseDB asserts that row-level triggers, lacking in MySQL but present in PostgreSQL, are the most important kind of trigger.
• EnterpriseDB claims PostgreSQL is superior in procedural language support to MySQL.
• EnterpriseDB claims PostgreSQL is superior in authentication support to MySQL.

Read more

Yahoo scales its web analytics database to petabyte range

Information Week has an article with details on what sounds like Yahoo’s core web analytics database. Highlights include:

• The Yahoo web analytics database is over 1 petabyte. They claim it will be in the 10s of petabytes by 2009.
• The Yahoo web analytics database is based on PostgreSQL. So much for MySQL fanboys’ claims of Yahoo validation for their beloved toy … uh, let me rephrase that. The highly-regarded MySQL, although doing a great job for some demanding and impressive applications at Yahoo, evidently wasn’t selected for this one in particular. OK. That’s much better now.
• But the Yahoo web analytics database doesn’t actually use PostgreSQL’s storage engine. Rather, Yahoo wrote something custom and columnar.
• Yahoo is processing 24 billion “events” per day. The article doesn’t clarify whether these are sent straight to the analytics store, or whether there’s an intermediate storage engine. Most likely the system fills blocks in RAM and then just appends them to the single persistent store. If commodity boxes occasionally crash and lose a few megs of data — well, in this application, that’s not a big deal at all.
• Yahoo thinks commercial column stores aren’t ready yet for more than 100 terabytes of data.
• Yahoo says it got great performance advantages from a custom system by optimizing for its specific application. I don’t know exactly what that would be, but I do know that database architectures for high-volume web analytics are still in pretty bad shape. In particular, there’s no good way yet to analyze the specific, variable-length paths users take through websites.

Database blades are not what they used to be

In which we bring you another instantiation of Monash’s First Law of Commercial Semantics: Bad jargon drives out good.

When Enterprise DB announced a partnership with Truviso for a “blade,” I naturally assumed they were using the term in a more-or-less standard way, and hence believed that it was more than a “Barney” press release.* Silly me. Rather than referring to something closely akin to “datablade,” EnterpriseDB’s “blade” program turns out to just to be a catchall set of partnerships.

*A “Barney” announcement is one whose entire content boils down to “I love you; you love me.”

According to EnterpriseDB CTO Bob Zurek, the main features of the “blade” program include:

Read more

Truviso and EnterpriseDB blend event processing with ordinary database management

Truviso and EnterpriseDB announced today that there’s a Truviso “blade” for Postgres Plus. By email, EnterpriseDB Bob Zurek endorsed my tentative summary of what this means technically, namely:

• There’s data being managed transactionally by EnterpriseDB.

• Truviso’s DML has all along included ways to talk to a persistent Postgres data store.

• If, in addition, one wants to do stream processing things on the same data, that’s now possible, using Truviso’s usual DML.

Read more

Supporting evidence for the DBMS disruption story

As previously announced, I did a webcast this afternoon, discussing database diversity. The title of the talk was taken directly from a post – What leading DBMS vendors don’t want you to realize — that argued mid-range DBMS are suitable for a broad variety of tasks. The overriding theme was a Clayton Christensen-style “disruption” narrative.

The sponsor was EnterpriseDB, which is fitting. While not the biggest DBMS industry disrupter in terms of revenue or visible impact (MySQL and Netezza say “Hi”), the Postgres family in general and EnterpriseDB in particular epitomize the disruption threat like nobody else, because of how broadly they substitute for market-leading database managers.

As I promised on the call, below is a post with links to further research backing up the points made. They’re numbered to match some of the presentation slides, which you can find at this link.

3. Much of the discussion of database diversity comes from a series of posts I coordinated with Mike Stonebraker.

4. At various times, starting on Slide 4, I made reference to datatype extensibility, a key feature of Oracle and DB2 – and a key advantage of Postgres over MySQL.

10. Capping off the database diversity discussion, Slide 10 mirrors this 11-point version of a data management software taxonomy.

13-14. I’ve posted many times about data warehousing DBMS and related technologies, including this overview of major analytic DBMS products, another recent overview of data warehouse specialty technologies, and an attempt to distinguish between data warehouse appliance myths and realities. Of particular interest for further research may be our sections on data warehouse appliances and columnar DBMS.

15. I do most of my posting about text search over on Text Technologies, specifically in the search category. Vendors I specifically mentioned as blending search with other kinds of data retrieval were Mark Logic and Attivio.

16. There’s a section here on native XML database management.

17. We also have a section on managing RDF and other graphical data models.

18. Ditto complex event/stream processing.

19. The only embeddable DBMS I’ve written much about recently is solidDB. And frankly, even in that case I’ve focused more on mid-tier caching uses, the now-canceled MySQL relationship, or general technology than I did specifically on embedded uses.

22-24. Back in February, 2007 I made what is probably still my clearest post explaining why I think market-leading DBMS vendors are in the process of getting disrupted

EnterpriseDB unveils Postgres Plus

EnterpriseDB is making a series of moves and announcements. Highlights include:

• Renaming/repositioning the product as “Postgres Plus.” The free product is now Postgres Plus, while the version you pay EnterpriseDB for is now Postgres Plus Advanced Server.
• Repackaging the products, so that Postgres Plus Advanced Server is a strict superset of Postgres Plus.
• New features added to Postgres Plus Advanced Server.
• Features newly migrated from Advanced Server down to Postgres Plus.
• A strategic investment by IBM.
• Stressing Postgres in EnterpriseDB marketing, and dropping the tag-line defining themselves as “the Oracle-compatible database company.”

So far as I can tell, most of the technical differences between Advanced Server and regular Postgres Plus lie in three areas: Read more

PostgreSQL can be used in a lot of different ways

The relational DBMS industry is filled with startups. In some way or other, most of them are based on or make use of the open source project PostgreSQL. (Not all, of course; exceptions include DATAllegro and Infobright, which are based on Ingres and MySQL respectively.) But how they use PostgreSQL varies greatly. Read more

Database management system choices — mid-range-relational

This is the fourth of a five-part series on database management system choices. For the first post in the series, please click here.

The other threat to the high-end relational DBMS vendors aims squarely at the heart of their business. It’s the mid-range relational database management systems, which are doing an ever-larger fraction of what their high-end cousins can. That said, different products do different things well. So if you’re not blindly paying up for the security of an all-things-to-all-people high-end DBMS, there are a number of factors you might want to consider.

Read more

PostgreSQL speeds up OLTP

The Register reports on PostgreSQL 8.3, and emphasizes OLTP speedups and reductions in administrative burden:

Among the changes, Heap Only Tuples (HOT) that may cut the maintenance overhead of frequently updated tables by up to 75 per cent, spread checkpoints and background writer autotuning to reduce the impact of check points on response times, and an asynchronous commit option that also speeds the response times of certain transactions.

I wonder how EnterpriseDB compares on these features.

Edit: Slashdot has discussion and links. And here’s a PostgreSQL feature matrix.

What hard-core transactional applications have actually been built in MySQL, PostgreSQL, EnterpriseDB, or FileMaker?

And here’s the biggie.

Question of the day #3

What complex, high-volume transactional applications have actually been built in mid-range DBMS such as MySQL, PostgreSQL, FileMaker, or EnterpriseDB?

I’ve been flamed for suggesting that MySQL or FileMaker aren’t fully equal to Oracle and DB2 in supporting hard-core transactional applications. (Which is ironic, because I’ve also been flamed for suggesting hard-core transactional support isn’t as big a deal for DBMS selection as some relational purists insist. But I digress …) So I’m putting the question out there — what impressive transactional applications do the stand-alone mid-range DBMS actually support? Read more

14 reasons not to use MySQL or other mid-range database management systems

I may argue for the use of open source and other mid-range database management systems, but a lot of industry sentiment remains on the other side. Vendors of high-end RDBMS naturally advocate enterprise-wide single-vendor adoption. Many CIOs and industry analysts, overwhelmed by product proliferation, think that’s a neat idea as well.

And in fairness, they’re not entirely wrong. Here are 14 reasons for using high-end relational database management systems, even on applications for which mid-range DBMS would suffice. Read more

Next Page →

Subscribe to the Monash Research feed via RSS or email:

Login

Search our blogs and white papers

Monash Research blogs

• DBMS2 covers database management, analytics, and related technologies.
• Text Technologies covers text mining, search, and social software.
• Strategic Messaging analyzes marketing and messaging strategy.
• The Monash Report examines technology and public policy issues.
• Software Memories recounts the history of the software industry.

User consulting

Building a short list? Refining your strategic plan? We can help.

Vendor advisory

We tell vendors what's happening -- and, more important, what they should do about it.

Monash Research highlights

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

• Recent posts

  • User data vs. raw disk space as a marketing metric
  • The TPC-H schema
  • Notes on columnar/TPC-H compression
  • Storage humor
  • NoSQL?

• Categories

  • About this blog
  • Analytic technologies
    • Business intelligence
    • Data mart outsourcing
    • Data warehousing
    • MOLAP
  • Application areas
    • Games and virtual worlds
    • Investment research and trading
    • Scientific research
    • Telecommunications
    • Web analytics
  • Buying processes
    • Benchmarks and POCs
  • Companies and products
    • 1010data
    • Ab Initio Software
    • Aleri and Coral8
    • Alpha Five
    • Amazon and its cloud
    • ANTs Software
    • Aster Data
    • Business Objects
    • Calpont
    • Cast Iron Systems
    • Clearpace
    • Cloudera
    • Cogito and 7 Degrees
    • Cognos
    • CouchDB
    • DATAllegro
    • Dataupia
    • Elastra
    • EMC
    • EnterpriseDB and Postgres Plus
    • Exasol
    • Expressor
    • FileMaker
    • Google
    • Greenplum
    • Hadoop
    • HP and Neoview
    • IBM and DB2
      • pureXML
    • illuminate Solutions
    • Infobright
    • Informatica
    • Information Builders
    • Inforsense
    • Ingres
    • Intel
    • Intersystems and Cache'
    • Jaspersoft
    • Kalido
    • Kickfire
    • Kognitio
    • Mark Logic
    • McObject
    • Microsoft and SQL*Server
    • MySQL
    • Netezza
    • Oracle
      • Exadata
    • Oracle TimesTen
    • ParAccel
    • Pentaho
    • Pervasive Software
    • PostgreSQL
    • Progress, Apama, and DataDirect
    • QlikTech and QlikView
    • SAND Technology
    • SAP AG
    • SAS Institute
    • ScaleDB
    • Software AG
    • solidDB
    • StreamBase
    • Sybase
    • Tableau Software
    • Talend
    • Teradata
    • Tokutek
    • Truviso
    • Vertica Systems
    • VoltDB and H-Store
  • Data integration and middleware
    • Application servers
    • EAI, EII, ETL, ELT, ETLT
  • Data types
    • GIS and geospatial
    • Native XML
    • Object
    • RDF and graphs
    • Text
  • DBMS product categories
    • Archiving and information preservation
    • Data warehouse appliances
    • Mid-range
    • OLTP
    • Open source
  • Emulation, transparency, portability
  • Fun stuff
    • Humor
  • Market share
  • Memory-centric data management
    • Cache
    • Complex event processing (CEP)
    • In-memory DBMS
  • Michael Stonebraker
  • Parallelization
    • MapReduce
  • Presentations
  • Pricing
  • Software as a Service (SaaS)
    • Cloud computing
  • Specific users
    • eBay
    • Facebook and Cassandra
    • Fox and MySpace
    • TEOCO
    • Yahoo
  • Storage
    • Solid-state memory
  • Theory and architecture
    • Columnar database management
    • Data models and architecture
    • Database compression
    • Database diversity
    • Petabyte-scale data management
  • TransRelational
  • Uncategorized

• Date archives

  Select Month July 2009  (6) June 2009  (25) May 2009  (19) April 2009  (30) March 2009  (23) February 2009  (29) January 2009  (18) December 2008  (10) November 2008  (13) October 2008  (29) September 2008  (60) August 2008  (28) July 2008  (23) June 2008  (7) May 2008  (16) April 2008  (18) March 2008  (22) February 2008  (25) January 2008  (35) December 2007  (18) November 2007  (12) October 2007  (31) September 2007  (16) August 2007  (11) July 2007  (9) June 2007  (16) May 2007  (6) April 2007  (18) March 2007  (17) February 2007  (8) January 2007  (13) December 2006  (1) November 2006  (1) October 2006  (7) September 2006  (17) August 2006  (6) July 2006  (12) June 2006  (1) May 2006  (7) April 2006  (7) March 2006  (2) February 2006  (4) January 2006  (13) December 2005  (9) November 2005  (9) October 2005  (10) September 2005  (1) August 2005  (6)

• Links

  • Monash Research
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers

• Admin

  • Log in

• Home
• About
• Contact
• Feeds