DBMS2 at IBM
I had a chat a couple of weeks ago with Bob Picciano, who runs servers (i.e., DBMS) for IBM. I came away feeling that, while they don’t use that name, they’re well down the DBMS2 path. By no means is this SAP’s level of commitment; after all, they have to cater to traditional technology strategies as well. But they definitely seem to be getting there.
Why do I say that? Well, in no particular order:
- They have a huge commitment to a data integration business, with an increasing XML focus.
- Their favorite buzzword these days is “information-intensive,” which seems to amount to semi-composite apps that may talk in part to unstructured/semi-structured data.
- They’re serious about their XML data server.
- Unprompted – well, OK, he’s clearly read my stuff, but other than that it was unprompted – Bob referred to one of the key benefits (real and perceived) of XML storage as being “schema flexibility.”
- By accident or design, IBM has a multi-server, horses-for-courses DBMS strategy: DB2 in two important flavors, XML server, Multivalue/Pick (that’s growing, by the way), and so on.
The big piece of a DBMS2 strategy that IBM seems to be lacking is a data-oriented services repository. IBM has had disasters in the past with over-grand repository plans, so they’re treading cautiously this time around. There also might be an organizational issue; DBMS and integration technology sit in separate divisions, and I doubt it’s yet appreciated throughout IBM how central data is to an SOA strategy.
But that not-so-minor detail aside, IBM definitely seems to be developing a DBMS2-like technology vision.
| Categories: EAI, EII, ETL, ELT, ETLT, IBM and DB2, OLTP, Structured documents | Leave a Comment |
Solid/MySQL fit and positioning
I felt like writing a lot about the great potential fit between MySQL and Solid over the weekend, but Solid didn’t want me to do so. Now, however, I’m not in the mood, so I’ll just say that in OLTP, Solid’s technology is strong where MySQL’s is weak, and vice-versa. E.g., Solid is so proud of its zero-administration capabilities that, without MySQL, it doesn’t have much in the way of admin tools at all. Conversely, I think that many of those websites that crash all the time with MySQL errors would crash less with the Solid engine underneath. (Solid happens to be proud of its BLOB-handling capability, efficiency-wise.)
Neither outfit is good in data warehousing, or in text search, image search, etc. (Solid slings big files around, but it doesn’t peer closely inside them). But for OLTP of tabular or dumb media data, this looks like a great fit.
Whether anybody will care, however, is a different matter.
Lisa Vaas of eWeek offers a survey of the many MySQL engine options.
EDIT: Another Lisa Vaas article makes it clear that MySQL is planning to compete in data warehousing/OLAP as well.
| Categories: Memory-centric data management, Mid-range, MySQL, OLTP, Open source, solidDB | 4 Comments |
More on Solid and MySQL?
In a stunningly self-defeating move, my friends at Solid have decided that anything about their already-leaked possible cooperation with MySQL is embargoed.
Indeed, they’ve emphasized to me multiple times that they do not wish me to write about it.
I shall honor their wishes. I hope they are pleased with the sophistication and insight of the coverage they receive from other sources.
| Categories: Memory-centric data management, Mid-range, MySQL, OLTP, Open source, solidDB | 3 Comments |
MySQL gets the Solid engine
Solid and MySQL have struck a deal (and for some odd reason I had to find out about it from Slashdot and then here rather than from one one the companies). Apparently Solid will open source a version of its storage engine, to be used with the MySQL front-end.
Solid’s core technology is a lightweight, zero-administration OLTP RDBMS. And they really mean “zero-administration,” because as they like to point out, a typical deployment is embedded in a piece of telecom equipment that doesn’t even have a keyboard. Now, that doesn’t really mean the Solid engine would still be zero-administration in other applications, but sure aren’t talking about something as prickly as, say, Oracle.
That said, Solid’s technology has its limitations. It isn’t historically designed for the query load (volume or mix) of, say, an SAP installation. It certainly doesn’t have much in the way of data warehousing functionality. And it doesn’t have much in the way of administration tools itself (although presumably MySQL will fill that gap).
One very important aspect of the Solid technology is its hybrid memory-centric design. Much more on that soon. My white paper on memory-centric data management is finally close to publication, with Solid as a co-sponsor. At some point I’ll even do a webinar for them associated with the paper.
I don’t know whether that’s part of the MySQL relationship — it would be very cool if it were.
| Categories: Memory-centric data management, Mid-range, MySQL, OLTP, Open source, solidDB | 2 Comments |
Marklogic’s experiences — from the warhorse’s mouth!
Another subject I meant to blog about is what all I’ve learned from Mark Logic about customer uses for XML.
Well, I have a great workaround for that one. Mark Logic CEO Dave Kellogg has revved up what I think is the most interesting vendor-exec blog I’ve seen. So if you’re interested in search/publishing-style uses for native XML, I strongly encourage you to go browse his blog. (And he writes about a lot of other interesting stuff as well.)
| Categories: MarkLogic, Structured documents | 1 Comment |
IBM’s definition of native XML
IBM’s recent press release on Viper says:
Viper is expected to be the only database product able to seamlessly manage both conventional relational data and pure XML data without requiring the XML data to be reformatted or placed into a large object within the database.
That, so far as I know, is true, at least among major products.
I’m willing to apply the “native” label to Microsoft’s implementation anyway, because conceptually there’s little or no necessary performance difference between their approach and IBM’s. (Dang. I thought I posted more details on that months ago. I need to remedy the lack soon.)
As for Oracle — well, right now Oracle has a bit of a competitive problem …
| Categories: IBM and DB2, Microsoft and SQL*Server, Oracle, Structured documents | 1 Comment |
SAP on SAP
Dan Farber’s blog from SAP’s developer conference isn’t, frankly, his best piece of work, since the quotes are sometimes so garbled as to be a bit unreadable. Still, it helps flesh out what we already knew about SAP’s strategy.
Basically, they claim to be reengineering their whole product line for the new services-based architcture I keep writing about. And they insist this truly is a new platform architecture. In that regard, I buy into and agree with their pitch.
They further insist that the mid-market will be a big part of their business going forward, but SaasS will not. I don’t buy into that as fully.
I’ll spell out why in another post, but not until Monday at the earliest. Watch the comments section on this one for trackbacks.
| Categories: SAP AG, Theory and architecture | Leave a Comment |
Oracle is getting touchy about XML
From Barbara Darrow’s “Unblog”:
“How we store XML on the database is, excuse me, none of your business. The point is you can write an app using XML standards,” said Mark Drake, manager of product management for XML technology for the Redwood Shores, Calif. vendor.
“Whether we shred it, parse it, it doesn’t matter. There is no such thing as a native XML storage model, there is no W3c standard or 11th stone tablet, telling us how,” he noted.
So implementation doesn’t matter? I.e., performance doesn’t matter?
That’s not generally Oracle’s viewpoint in areas where it has a performance or implementation advantage, or even parity …
| Categories: Oracle, Structured documents | 4 Comments |
God’s programming language
To the melody of the classic filk song “God Lives on Terra.” Parody lyrics written in 1996.
It’s wonderful. But then, I love filk. And I also love flexible data structures.
The lyrics start
I was taught assembler in my second year of school.
It’s kinda like construction work — with a toothpick for a tool.
So when I made my senior year, I threw my code away,
And learned the way to program that I still prefer today.Now, some folks on the Internet put their faith in C++.
They swear that it’s so powerful, it’s what God used for us.
And maybe it lets mortals dredge their objects from the C.
But I think that explains why only God can make a tree.
| Categories: Humor | 5 Comments |
Software AG’s Tamino?
Software AG consultant Jose Huerga reminded me that Software AG has been selling XML database managers for a long time, and that they are now up to Release 4.4 of Tamino.
Personally, I’m out of touch with Software AG (e.g., I last visited Darmstadt in 1984). Would anybody care to share knowledge of or experiences with this product?
| Categories: Structured documents | 4 Comments |