DATAllegro
Analysis of data warehouse appliance vendor DATAllegro and its products. Related subjects include:
- Microsoft, which is buying DATAllegro
- Data warehouse appliances
- Data warehousing
Notes from the Netezza user conference
EDIT: Big whoops, and apologies to Philip. I didn’t check the date, and what I linked to was last year’s article. That said, it read as if it could have been this year’s, which tells us something about the pace of Netezza’s information disclosure. Resulting errors of mine are left in place.
Netezza perennially annoys me by the secrecy with which it surrounds its information disclosure, especially at the annual user conference (just concluded). Essentially, except for what has also been separately disclosed, the whole thing is under NDA beyond the generality “We told you that we intend to improve our product by making more use of the FPGA.” Blech. That said, Philip Howard* has a long and — no surprise there! — upbeat article. So I’ll link to that, saving me some worries about what I myself am or am not allowed to say. E.g., I wouldn’t dare suggest — as Philip does — that Netezza’s zone maps (essentially, one-dimensional partitioning) could be enhanced going forward. And while I think Netezza has made strong efforts to tell the marketing stories Philip describes as being “hidden under a bushel,” I agree that — largely because of its self-defeating mania for secrecy — Netezza hasn’t done nearly as good a job of getting those messages accepted as it could have.
*Just to be clear — notwithstanding how much I tweak him for his exuberance, Philip seems to be a great guy, both in his publications and in person.
In general, much of what Philip wrote I would agree with. That said, let me hasten to point out some exceptions, including: Read more
| Categories: Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, DATAllegro, Netezza | 2 Comments |
Market reach tidbits from Netezza’s conference call
I’ve been slow to notice a very useful service being provided by Seeking Alpha, namely transcripts of quarterly earnings conference calls. For example, the Netezza call on August 23 revealed that Netezza sells approximately as many systems per year as it has quota-carrying sales teams. Or maybe it’s closer to 2 sales per team, especially for the more experienced ones. More precisely, the numbers discussed were 6-15 sales per quarter, and 35 sales teams. Average deal size was $2.3 million; based on the earnings press release, that suggests 10-11 deals depending on how much service revenue (if any) was included.
And by the way, if Netezza does 6-15 sales per quarter, and has a much smaller average sale than DATAllegro, and has much more revenue than DATAllegro — well, it’s easy to understand why DATAllegro isn’t exhibiting a very long list of customers.
Keep getting great research about data warehouse appliances and related technologies. Get a FREE subscription by RSS/Atom or e-mail!
| Categories: Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, DATAllegro, Netezza | 1 Comment |
Some pushback from DATAllegro against the columnar argument
I was chatting with Stuart Frost this evening (DATAllegro’s CEO). As usual, I grilled him about customer counts; as usual, he was evasive, but expressed general ebullience about the pace of business; also as usual, he was charming and helpful on other subjects.
In particular, we talked about the Vertica story, and he offered some interesting pushback. Part was blindingly obvious — Vertica’s not in the marketplace yet, when they are the product won’t be mature, and so on. Part was the also obvious “we can do most of that ourselves” line of argument, some of which I’ve summarized in a comment here. But he made two other interesting points as well. Read more
| Categories: Columnar database management, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, DATAllegro, Theory and architecture, Vertica Systems | 1 Comment |
Big stuff coming from DATAllegro
In the literal sense, that is. While the details on what I wrote about this a few weeks ago* are still embargoed, I’m at liberty to drop a few more hints.
*Please also see DATAllegro CEO Stuart Frost’s two comments added today to that thread.
DATAllegro systems these days basically consist of Dell servers talking to EMC disk arrays, with Cisco Infiniband to provide fast inter-server communication without significant CPU load. Well, if you decrease the number of Dell servers per EMC box, and increase the number of disks per EMC box, you can slash your per-terabyte price (possibly at the cost of lowering performance).
Read more
| Categories: Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Database compression, DATAllegro | Leave a Comment |
DATAllegro heads for the high end
DATAllegro Stuart Frost called in for a prebriefing/feedback/consulting session. (I love advising my DBMS vendor clients on how to beat each other’s brains in. This was even more fun in the 1990s, when combat was generally more aggressive. Those were also the days when somebody would change jobs to an arch-rival and immediately explain how everything they’d told me before was utterly false …)
While I had Stuart on the phone, I did manage to extract some stuff I’m at liberty to use immediately. Here are the highlights: Read more
| Categories: Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Database compression, DATAllegro, Greenplum, Netezza, Teradata | 4 Comments |
Bracing for Vertica
The word from Vertica is that the product will go GA in the fall, and that they’ll have blow-out benchmarks to exhibit.
I find this very credible. Indeed, the above may even be something of an understatement.
Vertica’s product surely has some drawbacks, which will become more apparent when the product is more available for examination. So I don’t expect row-based appliance innovators Netezza and DATAllegro to just dry up and blow away. On the other hand, not every data warehousing product is going to live long and prosper, and I’d rate Vertica’s chances higher than those of several competitors that are actually already in GA.
| Categories: Columnar database management, Data warehousing, DATAllegro, Netezza, Vertica Systems | 2 Comments |
Another short white paper on MPP data warehouse appliances
Following up on an earlier piece, DATAllegro has sponsored a second white paper on MPP data warehouse appliances. This one focuses specifically on DATAllegro’s move from Type 1 to Type 2 (i.e., virtual) appliances, via its new V3 product line. The basic tradeoffs of this move include:
- Superior hardware reliability
- Hardware lock-in shifted from DATAllegro to Dell, EMC, and Cisco
- Loss of specialized encryption acceleration
- Possibly a loss of some other performance optimization as well
- Better time-to-market in exploiting general Moore’s Law performance speedups
Actually, I didn’t make that last point explicitly in the paper, but it quite possibly trumps any performance disadvantages from the switch. And Moore’s Law itself certainly far outweighs any other performance-affecting factors.
| Categories: Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, DATAllegro | Leave a Comment |
Deal prospects for data warehouse DBMS vendors
The fourth Monash Letter is now posted for Monash Advantage members (just 3 pages this time). It’s about forthcoming M&A in data warehouse DBMS, something that seems likely just because of the large number of current players. Some of the observations are:
- Oracle needs to buy somebody, because of its rather dire product problems at the data warehouse high end. And it’s very much in keeping with their recent behavior to do so.
- Teradata could be acquired sooner than people think. While there are tax considerations preventing an outright sale, these should be obviated if all of the current NCR is taken private. What’s more NCR minus Teradata is exactly the kind of healthy, slow-growth, niche company that private equity loves.
- DATAllegro is a natural merger partner for somebody. Their technical differentiation is almost DBMS-independent, so it could be easy to roll them into a larger overall product strategy. And they have enough market traction to have proved some non-trivial value.
- Kognitio seems desperate these days, with several odd or even underhanded marketing tactics. But they do have MPP bitmap software, something Sybase sorely lacks. So there’s an obvious potential combination between those two.
| Categories: Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, DATAllegro, Kognitio, Oracle, Sybase, Teradata | 3 Comments |
White paper — Index-Light MPP Data Warehousing
Many of my thoughts on data warehouse DBMS and appliances have been collected in a white paper, sponsored by DATAllegro. As in a couple of other white papers — collected here — I coined a phrase to describe the core concept: Index-light. MPP row-oriented data warehouse DBMSs certainly have indices, which are occasionally even used. But the approaches to database design that are supported or make sense to use are simply different for DATAllegro, Netezza (the most extreme example of all) or Teradata than for Oracle or Microsoft. And the differences are all in the direction of less indexing.
Here’s an excerpt from the paper. Please pardon the formatting; it reads better in the actual .PDF Read more
| Categories: Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, DATAllegro, EMC, Theory and architecture | 4 Comments |
Compression in columnar data stores
We have lively discussions going on columnar data stores vs. vertically partitioned row stores. Part is visible in the comment thread to a recent post. Other parts come in private comments from Stuart Frost of DATAllegro and Mike Stonebraker of Vertica et al.
To me, the most interesting part of what the Vertica guys are saying is twofold. One is that data compression just works better in column stores than row stores, perhaps by a factor of 3, because “the next thing in storage is the same data type, rather than a different one.” Frankly, although Mike has said this a couple of times, I haven’t understood yet why row stores can’t be smart enough to compress just as well. Yes, it’s a little harder than it would be in a columnar system; but I don’t see why the challenge would be insuperable.
The second part is even cooler, namely the claim that column stores allow the processors to operate directly on compressed data. But once again, I don’t see why row stores can’t do that too. For example, when you join via bitmapped indices, exactly what you’re doing is operating on highly-compressed data.