November 7, 2008

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:

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.


One Response to “Big scientific databases need to be stored somehow”

  1. Dave on November 11th, 2008 2:13 pm

    I think the discussion extends into SQL based analytics vs. using the database as only a data repository for pulling and landing filtered (yet still massive) amounts of data somewhere for SAS/SPSS/R to poke at. If the problem can be framed as set based SQL using CASE WHENs, Inline views and analytic functions the answers will often be available before the equivalant SAS set has finished landing.

    Just my $0.02

Leave a Reply

Feed: DBMS (database management system), DW (data warehousing), BI (business intelligence), and analytics technology Subscribe to the Monash Research feed via RSS or email:


Search our blogs and white papers

Monash Research blogs

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.