The query from hell, and other stories
I write about a lot of products whose core job boils down to Make queries run fast. Without exception, their vendors tout stories of remarkable performance gains over conventional/incumbent DBMS (reported improvement is usually at least 50-fold, and commonly 100-500+). They further claim at least 2-3X better performance than their close competitors. In making these claims, vendors usually stress that their results come from live customer benchmarks. In few if any of the cases, I judge, are they lying outright. So what’s going on? Read more
| Categories: Benchmarks and POCs, Data warehousing | Leave a Comment |
Exasol technical briefing
It took 5 ½ months after my non-technical introduction, but I finally got a briefing from Exasol’s technical folks (specifically, the very helpful Mathias Golombek and Carsten Weidmann). Here are some highlights: Read more
| Categories: Analytic technologies, Benchmarks and POCs, Columnar database management, Data warehousing, Exasol, In-memory DBMS, Memory-centric data management, Pricing | 1 Comment |
Response to Rita Sallam of Oracle
In a comment thread on Seth Grimes’ blog, Rita Sallam of Oracle engaged in a passionate defense of her data warehousing software. I’d like to take it upon myself to respond to a few of here points here. Read more
| Categories: Benchmarks and POCs, Clustering, Data warehousing, Oracle, Parallelization | 10 Comments |
Kickfire kicks off
I chatted with Raj Cherabuddi and others on the Kickfire (formerly C2) team for over an hour on Monday, and now have a better sense of their story. There are some very basic questions I still don’t have answers to; I’ll fill those in when I can.
Highlights of what I have and haven’t figured out so far include:
-
Kickfire’s technology has two main parts: A SQL co-processor chip and a MySQL storage engine.
-
Kickfire makes a Type 0 appliance. If I understood correctly, it contains the chip, a couple of standard CPU cores, and 64 gigs of RAM. Or else it contains just the chip, and is meant to be hooked up to a 2U box with 64 gigs of RAM. I’m confused.
-
The Kickfire box can handle up to 3 terabytes of user data. The disk required for that is 4-5 terabytes without redundancy, 2X with. Based on that formulation and other clues, I’m guessing Kickfire — unlike other appliance vendors — doesn’t build in storage itself.
-
I don’t know whether the Kickfire chip is true custom silicon or an FPGA emulation.
-
The essential idea of the chip is dataflow programming for SQL, with pipelining between operations. This eliminates the overhead of registers and context switching. I don’t know what the trade-offs are, if any.
-
Kickfire’s database software is columnar, operating on compressed data even in RAM. In that, Kickfire’s story is most similar to Vertica’s, although I’m guessing Exasol may do something similar as well. Like Vertica, Kickfire uses multiple compression methods (they’re reluctant to give detail, but agreed it would be fair to say they use both something like dictionary/token and something like delta compression).
-
Kickfire’s software is ACID-compliant. You can do incremental loads or trickle feeds. Bulk load speed is 100 Gb/hour. Kickfire’s solution for the traditional problem of updating column stores is called “snapshots.” Without giving details, they position that as similar to the Vertica solution.
-
Like other MySQL storage engines, Kickfire inherits whatever data connectivity, stored procedure capabilities, user-defined functions ability, etc. that MySQL has.
-
Kickfire has no paying customers, but does have a slide showing many logos of “prospects and beta customers.”
-
Kickfire has no MPP capabilities at this time, but says adding those is “on the roadmap” and will be “easy.”
-
Kickfire submitted a 100 Gb TPC-H result, in which it beat the previous leaders — Exasol, ParAccel, and Microsoft – on price-performance, and lagged only Exasol and ParAccel on absolute performance. Kickfire is extremely proud of this. Indeed, I don’t recall another vendor ascribing that much weight to them in the entire history of TPCs.* Kickfire seems unfazed by the fact that its result is for a system listed with a ship date 6 months in the future (I’m guessing that’s the latest the TPC will allow), while the other results are for systems available today.
*Somebody – perhaps adman extraordinaire Rick Bennett? — may want to check my memory on this, but I think Oracle’s famed “Gentlemen, start your snails” ad in the early 1990s was about PC World tests, not TPCs. Oracle also had an ad about WW1-style planes nosediving, but I don’t think those referenced TPCs either.
Four anonymous Netezza fans
I just found a blog post asking about Netezza that elicited quite a few responses, including at least four that purported to be from people whose companies had selected Netezza in a POC (Proof Of Concept) bake-off. One says Netezza was super-fast, even over DATAllegro, and DATAllegro’s professional services were lacking. One says Netezza is 50X faster than traditional alternatives on some queries, but up to 2X slower on some others. Two others just expressed love (or at least commitment) without giving details.
I haven’t yet looked through the rest of the responses in the thread.
| Categories: Analytic technologies, Benchmarks and POCs, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, DATAllegro, Netezza | 3 Comments |
Three bold assertions by Mike Stonebraker
In the first “meat” — i.e., other than housekeeping — post on the new Database Column blog, Mike Stonebraker makes three core claims:
1. Different DBMS should be used for different purposes. I am in violent agreement with that point, which is indeed a major theme of this blog.
2. Vertica’s software is 50X faster than anything non-columnar and 10X faster than anything columnar. Now, some of these stats surely come from the syndrome of comparing the future release of your product, as tuned by world’s greatest experts on it who also hope to get rich on their stock options in your company, vs. some well-established production release of your competitors’ products, tuned to an unknown level of excellence,* with the whole thing running test queries that you, in your impartial wisdom, deem representative of user needs. Or something like that … Read more
| Categories: Benchmarks and POCs, Columnar database management, Data warehousing, Database diversity, Michael Stonebraker, OLTP, Theory and architecture, TransRelational | 3 Comments |
TransRelational(TM) nonsense
Database guru Christopher J. Date is apparently accepting money from attendees to his seminars on TransRelational(TM) database archicture, so that he can tell them about an as-yet unreleased product from Required Technologies, Inc.
This is regrettable on multiple levels.
1. Required Technologies shut down product development in 2002, after running through $30 million; there’s great acrimony between investors and the CEO; and lawsuits are likely.
2. Required’s product never did most of what Date seems to be claiming it now does. It was a read-oriented columnar data store, much like Sybase IQ or a number of other products from younger companies. Read more