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:
- 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.
Categories: Aster Data, Data types, Greenplum, IBM and DB2, Kognitio, Microsoft and SQL*Server, Netezza, Oracle, Parallelization, PostgreSQL, Scientific research
Subscribe to our complete feed!
Comments
One Response to “Big scientific databases need to be stored somehow”
Leave a Reply
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