OLTP
Analysis of database management systems designed with a focus on OTLP (OnLine Transaction Processing) uses.
OLTP database management system market – the consensus isn’t ALL wrong (deck-clearing post #1)
Most of what I’ve written lately about database management seems to have been focused on analytic technologies. But I have a lot to say on the OLTP (OnLine Transaction Processing) side too. So let’s start by clearing the decks. Here’s a list of some consensus views that I in essence agree with:
- Oracle is the top of the line, and has nothing wrong with it other than cost of ownership and the non-joys of doing business with Oracle Corporation.
- DB2/mainframe is a fine product, but only if you like IBM mainframes.
- DB2/open systems is another fine product, but it’s hard to think of reasons to use it over Oracle.
- Microsoft SQL Server has great cost of ownership if you’re a Windows (server) shop anyway, especially on the administrative side. It does most but not all of what Oracle does.
- Sybase Adaptive Server Enterprise is a lot like SQL Server, but without the Windows dependence or the great Microsoft tools. If you have it installed or are Chinese, you should strongly consider using it, but otherwise there are better alternatives.
- Progress’ DBMS is great if you don’t need any of the features it’s missing. Administration, for example, is a super-low-cost breeze. But why use it unless you’re also using the Progress development tools?
- Intersystems’ Cache’ is another fine mid-range product that involves buying into the vendors’ whole tool set – all the more so because it isn’t relational.
- Small-footprint embedded DBMS, from vendors such as Sybase’s iAnywhere division or Solid Information Technologies, are off in their own little world. Mainly, that world is telecom, with a satellite in medical devices, although other kinds of networked equipment also sometimes use these products.
- IBM’s non-DB2 database management products – IMS, Informix, etc. – are fine things to stick with until you have to change. Ditto products from Software AG, Computer Associates, Cincom, etc.
- MySQL Version 4 is an OLTP joke, but it’s a joke many people share. (Hey — a lot of blogs, including mine, run on WordPress and MySQL 4.)
- Until Ingres is meaningfully marketed and sold outside its installed base, it’s not worth worrying about.
- PostgreSQL is more significant as the underpinning of other products — mainly EnterpriseDB in the OLTP space — than it is in its own right.
EnterpriseDB’s Oracle clone — fact or fiction?
PostgreSQL-based EnterpriseDB is attracting a bit of attention. Philip Howard, as he does of most products, takes a favorable view. Seth Grimes regards the company as dirty, rotten liars. The company suggests that Everquest gameplay* runs on an RDBMS. I find this inherently implausible, and hence am starting out with a skeptical view of the company’s marketing messages.
*As in character movement. The idea that character inventory is stored in an RDBMS I find vastly more credible. Ditto other less volatile aspects of character state.
Read more
| Categories: ANTs Software, Emulation, transparency, portability, EnterpriseDB and Postgres Plus, Games and virtual worlds, Mid-range, OLTP, Open source, Oracle, PostgreSQL | 4 Comments |
Solid’s MySQL engine
Solid Information Technology is making the beta of its MySQL engine available for download midday on Tuesday. So I talked with them today, mercifully unembargoed. Here’s the story.
| Categories: Memory-centric data management, Mid-range, MySQL, OLTP, Open source | 4 Comments |
Philip Howard likes Viper
Philip Howard likes DB2’s Viper release. Truth be told, Philip Howard seems to like most products, whether they deserve it or not. But in this case, I think his analysis is spot-on.
| Categories: IBM and DB2, OLTP, Structured documents | Leave a Comment |
Hot times at Intersystems
About a year ago, I wrote a very favorable column focusing on Intersystems’ OODBMS Cache’. Cache’ appears to be the one OODBMS product that has good performance even in a standard disk-centric configuration, notwithstanding that random pointer access seems to be antithetical to good disk performance.
Intersystems also has a hot new Cache’-based integration product, Ensemble. They attempted to brief me on it (somewhat belatedly, truth be told) last Wednesday. Through no fault of the product, however, the briefing didn’t go so well. I still look forward to learning more about Ensemble.
| Categories: EAI, EII, ETL, ELT, ETLT, Humor, Intersystems and Cache', Object, OLTP | Leave a Comment |
White paper on memory-centric data management — excerpt
Here’s an excerpt from the introduction to my new white paper on memory-centric data management. I don’t know why WordPress insists on showing the table gridlines, but I won’t try to fix that now. Anyhow, if you’re interested enough to read most of this excerpt, I strongly suggest downloading the full paper.
|
|
Introduction
|
|
Conventional DBMS don’t always perform adequately. |
Ideally, IT managers would never need to think about the details of data management technology. Market-leading, general-purpose DBMS (DataBase Management Systems) would do a great job of meeting all information management needs. But we don’t live in an ideal world. Even after decades of great technical advances, conventional DBMS still can’t give your users all the information they need, when and where they need it, at acceptable cost. As a result, specialty data management products continue to be needed, filling the gaps where more general DBMS don’t do an adequate job.
|
|
Memory-centric technology is a powerful alternative. |
One category on the upswing is memory-centric data management technology. While conventional DBMS are designed to get data on and off disk quickly, memory-centric products (which may or may not be full DBMS) assume all the data is in RAM in the first place. The implications of this design choice can be profound. RAM access speeds are up to 1,000,000 times faster than random reads on disk. Consequently, whole new classes of data access methods can be used when the disk speed bottleneck is ignored. Sequential access is much faster in RAM, too, allowing yet another group of efficient data access approaches to be implemented.
|
|
It does things disk-based systems can’t. |
If you want to query a used-book database a million times a minute, that’s hard to do in a standard relational DBMS. But Progress’ ObjectStore gets it done for Amazon. If you want to recalculate a set of OLAP (OnLine Analytic Processing) cubes in real-time, don’t look to a disk-based system of any kind. But Applix’s TM1 can do just that. And if you want to stick DBMS instances on 99 nodes of a telecom network, all persisting data to a 100th node, a disk-centric system isn’t your best choice – but Solid’s BoostEngine should get the job done.
|
|
Memory-centric data managers fill the gap, in various guises. |
Those products are some leading examples of a diverse group of specialist memory-centric data management products. Such products can be optimized for OLAP or OLTP (OnLine Transaction Processing) or event-stream processing. They may be positioned as DBMS, quasi-DBMS, BI (Business Intelligence) features, or some utterly new kind of middleware. They may come from top-tier software vendors or from the rawest of startups. But they all share a common design philosophy: Optimize the use of ever-faster semiconductors, rather than focusing on (relatively) slow-spinning disks.
|
|
They have a rich variety of benefits. |
For any technology that radically improves price/performance (or any other measure of IT efficiency), the benefits can be found in three main categories:
For memory-centric data management, the “things that you couldn’t do before at all” are concentrated in areas that are highly real-time or that use non-relational data structures. Conversely, for many relational and/or OLTP apps, memory-centric technology is essentially a much cheaper/better/faster way of doing what you were already struggling through all along.
|
|
Memory-centric technology has many applications. |
Through both OEM and direct purchases, many enterprises have already adopted memory-centric technology. For example: |
|
|
|
| Categories: Data types, Memory-centric data management, MOLAP, Object, OLTP, Open source, Progress, Apama, and DataDirect | 3 Comments |
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 |