Analysis of data warehousing giant Teradata. Related subjects include:
As vendors so often do, Teradata has caused itself some naming confusion. SQL-H was introduced as a facility of Teradata Aster, to complement SQL-MR.* But while SQL-MR is in essence a set of SQL extensions, SQL-H is not. Rather, SQL-H is a transparency interface that makes Hadoop data responsive to the same code that would work on Teradata Aster …
*Speaking of confusion — Teradata Aster seems to use the spellings SQL/MR and SQL-MR interchangeably.
… except that now there’s also a SQL-H for regular Teradata systems as well. While it has the same general features and benefits as SQL-H for Teradata Aster, the details are different, since the underlying systems are.
I hope that’s clear.
|Categories: Data integration and middleware, Data warehousing, Emulation, transparency, portability, Hadoop, SQL/Hadoop integration, Teradata||2 Comments|
The cardinal rules of DBMS development
Rule 1: Developing a good DBMS requires 5-7 years and tens of millions of dollars.
That’s if things go extremely well.
Rule 2: You aren’t an exception to Rule 1.
- Concurrent workloads benchmarked in the lab are poor predictors of concurrent performance in real life.
- Mixed workload management is harder than you’re assuming it is.
- Those minor edge cases in which your Version 1 product works poorly aren’t minor after all.
DBMS with Hadoop underpinnings …
… aren’t exceptions to the cardinal rules of DBMS development. That applies to Impala (Cloudera), Stinger (Hortonworks), and Hadapt, among others. Fortunately, the relevant vendors seem to be well aware of this fact. Read more
I recently complained that the Gartner Magic Quadrant for Data Warehouse DBMS conflates many use cases into one set of rankings. So perhaps now would be a good time to offer some thoughts on how to tell use cases apart. Assuming you know that you really want to manage your analytic database with a relational DBMS, the first questions you ask yourself could be:
- How big is your database? How big is your budget?
- How do you feel about appliances?
- How do you feel about the cloud?
- What are the size and shape of your workload?
- How fresh does the data need to be?
Let’s drill down. Read more
Comments on Gartner’s 2012 Magic Quadrant for Data Warehouse Database Management Systems — evaluations
To my taste, the most glaring mis-rankings in the 2012/2013 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Data Warehouse Database Management are that it is too positive on Kognitio and too negative on Infobright. Secondarily, it is too negative on HP Vertica, and too positive on ParAccel and Actian/VectorWise. So let’s consider those vendors first.
Gartner seems confused about Kognitio’s products and history alike.
- Gartner calls Kognitio an “in-memory” DBMS, which is not accurate.
- Gartner doesn’t remark on Kognitio’s worst-in-class* compression.
- Gartner gives Kognitio oddly high marks for a late, me-too Hadoop integration strategy.
- Gartner writes as if Kognitio’s next attempt at the US market will be the first one, which is not the case.
- Gartner says that Kognitio pioneered data warehouse SaaS (Software as a Service), which actually has existed since the pre-relational 1970s.
Gartner is correct, however, to note that Kognitio doesn’t sell much stuff overall.
In the cases of HP Vertica, Infobright, ParAccel, and Actian/VectorWise, the 2012 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Data Warehouse Database Management’s facts are fairly accurate, but I dispute Gartner’s evaluation. When it comes to Vertica: Read more
I’ve hacked both the PHP and CSS that drive this website. But if I had to write PHP or CSS from scratch, I literally wouldn’t know how to begin.
Something similar, I suspect, is broadly true of “business analysts.” I don’t know how somebody can be a competent business analyst without being able to generate, read, and edit SQL. (Or some comparable language; e.g., there surely are business analysts who only know MDX.) I would hope they could write basic SELECT statements as well.
But does that mean business analysts are comfortable with the fancy-schmantzy extended SQL that the analytic platform vendors offer them? I would assume that many are but many others are not. And thus I advised such a vendor recently to offer sample code, and lots of it — dozens or hundreds of isolated SQL statements, each of which does a specific task.* A business analyst could reasonably be expected to edit any of those to point them his own actual databases, even though he can’t necessarily be expected to easily write such statements from scratch. Read more
I took the opportunity of Teradata’s Aster/Hadoop appliance announcement to catch up with Teradata hardware chief Carson Schmidt. I love talking with Carson, about both general design philosophy and his views on specific hardware component technologies.
From a hardware-requirements standpoint, Carson seems to view Aster and Hadoop as more similar to each other than either is to, say, a Teradata Active Data Warehouse. In particular, for Aster and Hadoop:
- I/O is more sequential.
- The CPU:I/O ratio is higher.
- Uptime is a little less crucial.
The most obvious implication is differences in the choice of parts, and of their ratio. Also, in the new Aster/Hadoop appliance, Carson is content to skate by with RAID 5 rather than RAID 1.
I think Carson’s views about flash memory can be reasonably summarized as: Read more
|Categories: Aster Data, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Hadoop, Solid-state memory, Storage, Teradata||2 Comments|
Two of the more interesting approaches for integrating Hadoop and MapReduce with relational DBMS come from my clients at Teradata Aster (via SQL/MR and SQL-H) and Hadapt. In both cases, the story starts:
- You can dump any kind of data you want into Hadoop’s file system.
- You can have data in a scale-out RDBMS to get good performance on analytic SQL.
- You can access all the data (not just the relationally stored part) via SQL.
- You can do MapReduce on all the data (not just the Hadoop-stored part).
- To varying degrees, Hadapt and Aster each offer three kinds of advantage over Hadoop-with-Hive:
- SQL performance is (much) better.
- SQL functionality is better.
- At least some of your employees — the “business analysts” — can invoke MapReduce processes through SQL, if somebody else (e.g. your techies or the vendor’s) coded them up in the first place.
Of course, there are plenty of differences. Those start: Read more
My clients at Teradata are introducing a mix-em/match-em Aster/Hadoop box, officially called the Teradata Aster Big Analytics Appliance. Basics include:
- You can fill a rack with nodes either for the Aster DBMS or for Hadoop (Hortonworks flavor), or you can combine them in the same box.
- If you combine them, they share management software (adapted from mainstream Teradata’s) and Infiniband.
- An Aster node has 16 2.6-gigahertz cores and 24 900GB disk drives.
- A Hadoop node has 12 2.0-gigahertz cores and 12 3TB drives.
- A central part of Teradata’s strategy is that Aster and Hadoop nodes can work together via SQL-H.
- The Teradata Aster Big Analytics Appliance is based on a family of Dell servers that fit more compactly into racks than do Teradata’s traditional products.
- The Teradata Aster Big Analytics Appliance replaces a previous interim Teradata Aster appliance that used similar hardware to that in other Teradata systems.
My views on the Teradata Aster Big Analytics Appliance start: Read more
I was asked to clarify one of my July comments on Oracle12c,
I wonder whether Oracle will finally introduce a true columnar storage option, a year behind Teradata. That would be the obvious enhancement on the data warehousing side, if they can pull it off. If they can’t, it’s a damning commentary on the core Oracle codebase.
by somebody smart who however seemed to have half-forgotten my post comparing (hybrid) columnar compression to (hybrid) columnar storage.
In simplest terms:
- Columnar storage and columnar compression are two different things. The main connections are:
- Columnar storage can make columnar compression more effective.
- In different ways, both technologies reduce I/O.
- EMC Greenplum, Teradata Aster, and Teradata Classic are all originally row-based systems that have gone hybrid columnar.
- Vertica is an originally column-based system that has gone hybrid columnar.
|Categories: Aster Data, Columnar database management, Data warehousing, Database compression, Greenplum, Oracle, Teradata, Vertica Systems||4 Comments|
This post started as a minor paragraph in another one I’m drafting. But it grew. Please also see the comment thread below.
Increasingly many data management systems store data in a cluster, putting several copies of data — i.e. “replicas” — onto different nodes, for safety and reliable accessibility. (The number of copies is called the “replication factor”.) But how do they know that the different copies of the data really have the same values? It seems there are three main approaches to immediate consistency, which may be called:
- Two-phase commit (2PC)
- Read-your-writes (RYW) consistency
- Prudent optimism
I shall explain.
Two-phase commit has been around for decades. Its core idea is:
- One node commands other nodes (and perhaps itself) to write data.
- The other nodes all reply “Aye, aye; we are ready and able to do that.”
- The first node broadcasts “Make it so!”
Unless a piece of the system malfunctions at exactly the wrong time, you’ll get your consistent write. And if there indeed is an unfortunate glitch — well, that’s what recovery is for.
But 2PC has a flaw: If a node is inaccessible or down, then the write is blocked, even if other parts of the system were able to accept the data safely. So the NoSQL world sometimes chooses RYW consistency, which in essence is a loose form of 2PC: Read more
|Categories: Aster Data, Clustering, Hadoop, HBase, IBM and DB2, Netezza, NoSQL, Teradata, Vertica Systems||9 Comments|