Oracle
Analysis of software titan Oracle and its efforts in database management, analytics, and middleware. Related subjects include:
- Oracle TimesTen
- (in The Monash Report)Operational and strategic issues for Oracle
- (in Software Memories) Historical notes on Oracle
- Most of what’s written about in this blog
Notes on Microsoft SQL Server
I’ve been known to gripe that covering big companies such as Microsoft is hard. Still, Doug Leland of Microsoft’s SQL Server team checked in for phone calls in August and again today, and I think I got enough to be worth writing about, albeit at a survey level only,
Subjects I’ll mention include:
- Hadoop
- Parallel Data Warehouse
- PolyBase
- Columnar data management
- In-memory data management (Hekaton)
One topic I can’t yet comment about is MOLAP/ROLAP, which is a pity; if anybody can refute my claim that ROLAP trumps MOLAP, it’s either Microsoft or Oracle.
Microsoft’s slides mentioned Yahoo refining a 6 petabyte Hadoop cluster into a 24 terabyte SQL Server “cube”, which was surprising in light of Yahoo’s history as an Oracle reference.
Oracle and IBM — strategic context
By my standards, I’ve been writing a lot about Oracle and IBM recently. Let me now step back and review the context in which I view them.
At the highest level, Oracle and IBM have similar strategic priorities, in line with the Innovator’s Dilemma/Innovator’s Solution issues I keep mentioning. That is:
- Oracle and IBM sell mainly to large enterprises with complex IT needs.
- Oracle and IBM sell mainly to their respective existing customers.
- Oracle and IBM are looking to preserve and expand revenue, margins, and share-of-wallet at those large existing customers.
- Oracle and IBM rely on and encourage customers’ desire to consolidate purchasing among as few vendors as possible.
- Technical implications include:
- Oracle and IBM invest in features that only large, complex enterprises care about.
- Oracle and IBM offer many kinds of technology and services, which they strive to make work fairly well together.
Of course, there are major differences in the two companies’ product and service portfolios. Some of the biggest are: Read more
| Categories: Buying processes, IBM and DB2, Oracle | 5 Comments |
Analyzing big companies is hard
Analyzing companies of any size is hard. Analyzing large ones, however, is harder yet.
- I get (much) less substance in an hour on the phone with a megacorp than I do when I talk with a smaller company.
- What large companies say is less reliable than what I hear from smaller ones.
- Large companies have policies, procedures, bureaucracy and attitudes that get in the way of communicating in the first place.
Such limitations should be borne in mind in connection with anything I write about, for example, Oracle, Microsoft, IBM, or SAP.
There are many reasons for large companies to communicate less usefully with analysts than smaller ones do. Some of the biggest are:
- For reasons of internal information flow, the people I talk with just know less than their counterparts at smaller companies. Similarly, what they do “know” is more often wrong, since different parts of the same company may not hold identical views.
- That’s when we talk about real issues at all, which can get crowded out by large companies’ voluminous efforts in complex positioning, messaging, and product names.
- Huge companies have huge bureaucracies, and they hurt.
- A small company C-level executive can make smart decisions about what to say or not say. A large company minion doesn’t have the same freedom.
- Just the process of getting access to even a mid-level spokesminion at a large company is harder than reaching a senior person at a smaller outfit.
- Large firms are clearest when communicating with their existing customers and those organizations’ key influencers. They’re less effective or clear when opening themselves up to competitive comparisons.
- If a company wants to behave unethically in its analyst dealings, there are economies of scale to doing so.
| Categories: About this blog, IBM and DB2, Microsoft and SQL*Server, Oracle, SAP AG, Sybase | 6 Comments |
That multi-tenancy discussion revisited
Keeping in mind Monash’s Third Law of Commercial Semantics,
No market categorization is ever precise
I’ll try to clarify my response to Oracle’s claims about Oracle12c being a “multi-tenant” DBMS.
I wrote a couple days ago:
Oracle is confusing people with its comments on multi-tenancy. I suspect:
- What Oracle is talking about when it says “multi-tenancy” is more like consolidation than true multi-tenancy.
- Probably there are a couple of true multi-tenancy features as well.
Now I’m even having doubts about the second part.
In simplest terms:
- Multi-tenancy is about making a single thing appear to be many different ones — typically one for each customer. Here the “things” can be databases and/or instances of the (same) application that talks to them.
- Database consolidation is about letting many different databases be hosted or managed more as one.
But from everything I’ve heard:
- Oracle12c’s announced new features improve database consolidation, not multi-tenancy.
More detail may be found at the links above.
| Categories: Oracle, Software as a Service (SaaS) | 4 Comments |
Notes on the Oracle OpenWorld Sunday keynote
I’m not at Oracle OpenWorld, but as usual that won’t keep me from commenting. My bottom line on the first night’s announcements is:
- At many large enterprises, Oracle has a lock on much of their IT efforts. (But not necessarily in the internet or investigative analytics areas.) Tonight’s announcements serve to strengthen that.
- Tonight’s announcements do little to help Oracle in other market segments.
In particular:
1. At the highest level, my view of Oracle’s strategy is the same as it’s been for several years:
Clayton Christensen’s The Innovator’s Solution teaches us that Oracle should focus on selling a thick stack of technology to its highest-end customers, and that’s exactly what Oracle does focus on.
2. Tonight’s news is closely in line with what Oracle’s Juan Loaiza told me three years ago, especially:
- Oracle thinks flash memory is the most important hardware technology of the decade, one that could lead to Oracle being “bumped off” if they don’t get it right.
- Juan believes the “bulk” of Oracle’s business will move over to Exadata-like technology over the next 5-10 years. Numbers-wise, this seems to be based more on Exadata being a platform for consolidating an enterprise’s many Oracle databases than it is on Exadata running a few Especially Big Honking Database management tasks.
3. Oracle is confusing people with its comments on multi-tenancy. I suspect:
- What Oracle is talking about when it says “multi-tenancy” is more like consolidation than true multi-tenancy.
- Probably there are a couple of true multi-tenancy features as well.
4. SaaS (Software as a Service) vendors don’t want to use Oracle, because they don’t want to pay for it.* This limits the potential impact of Oracle’s true multi-tenancy features. Even so: Read more
Hoping for true columnar storage in Oracle12c
I was asked to clarify one of my July comments on Oracle12c,
I wonder whether Oracle will finally introduce a true columnar storage option, a year behind Teradata. That would be the obvious enhancement on the data warehousing side, if they can pull it off. If they can’t, it’s a damning commentary on the core Oracle codebase.
by somebody smart who however seemed to have half-forgotten my post comparing (hybrid) columnar compression to (hybrid) columnar storage.
In simplest terms:
- Columnar storage and columnar compression are two different things. The main connections are:
- Columnar storage can make columnar compression more effective.
- In different ways, both technologies reduce I/O.
- EMC Greenplum, Teradata Aster, and Teradata Classic are all originally row-based systems that have gone hybrid columnar.
- Vertica is an originally column-based system that has gone hybrid columnar.
| Categories: Aster Data, Columnar database management, Data warehousing, Database compression, Greenplum, Oracle, Teradata, Vertica Systems | 4 Comments |
Database challenges in multi-tenancy support
I predicted 2 months ago that Oracle 12c would have some kind of improved support for multi-tenancy; Larry Ellison confirmed on this week’s earnings call that it will. So maybe it’s time to think about what such support could or should mean. I’m actually still on vacation, so I’d like to keep this short, but here are a few notes.
- The goal of multi-tenancy is:
- SaaS (Software as a Service) users should get all the flexibility, performance, security, and control they would expect if their SaaS vendor hosted a software instance and database just for them.
- SaaS vendors shouldn’t have to do any more than host a single instance of the application software and a single database.
- In its purest form, that goal is a nice dream.
- Separation-of-access and related security issues are the most obvious requirement of multi-tenancy. However, the simplest ways to meet the requirement stress your SELECT statements. I alluded to that in a post about salesforce.com.
- In a clustered, multi-tenant SaaS database, you want each tenant’s individual database to be properly clustered. Perhaps you want it all on one server. Perhaps you want it striped across the cluster. In any case, your DBMS’ clustering has to be flexible and granular enough to make that possible.
- Caching should also be as good for each tenant as if that tenant had a standalone database.
- Individual tenants need to be able to administer their databases, at least in certain ways, as if they were standalone, or else the SaaS vendor needs to be able to do it for them.
- This is implicit in what I said above about users/roles/permissions, clustering, and caching.
- It really gets interesting when we take into account application customization and the resulting schema changes.
- And before we get too excited about any of this, please note that there are many SaaS vendors in the world doing just fine without explicit DBMS multi-tenancy features.
| Categories: Clustering, Oracle, Software as a Service (SaaS) | 8 Comments |
Integrated internet system design
What are the central challenges in internet system design? We probably all have similar lists, comprising issues such as scale, scale-out, throughput, availability, security, programming ease, UI, or general cost-effectiveness. Screw those up, and you don’t have an internet business.
Much new technology addresses those challenges, with considerable success. But the success is usually one silo at a time — a short-request application here, an analytic database there. When it comes to integration, unsolved problems abound.
The top integration and integration-like challenges for me, from a practical standpoint, are:
- Integrating silos — a decades-old problem still with us in a big way.
- Dynamic schemas with joins.
- Low-latency business intelligence.
- Human real-time personalization.
Other concerns that get mentioned include:
- Geographical distribution due to privacy laws, which for some users is a major requirement for compliance.
- Logical data warehouse, a term that doesn’t actually mean anything real.
- In-memory data grids, which some day may no longer always be hand-coupled to the application and data stacks they accelerate.
Let’s skip those latter issues for now, focusing instead on the first four.
Data warehouse appliance — analytic glossary draft entry
This is a draft entry for the DBMS2 analytic glossary. Please comment with any ideas you have for its improvement!
Note: Words and phrases in italics will be linked to other entries when the glossary is complete.
A data warehouse appliance is a combination of hardware and software that includes an analytic DBMS (DataBase Management System). However, some observers incorrectly apply the term “data warehouse appliance” to any analytic DBMS.
The paradigmatic vendors of data warehouse appliances are:
- Teradata, which embraced the term “data warehouse appliance” in 2008.
- Netezza — now an IBM company — which popularized the term “data warehouse appliance” in the 2000s.
Further, vendors of analytic DBMS commonly offer — directly or through partnerships — optional data warehouse appliance configurations; examples include:
- Greenplum, now part of EMC.
- Vertica, now an HP company.
- IBM DB2, under the brand “Smart Analytic System”.
- Microsoft (Parallel Data Warehouse).
Oracle Exadata is sometimes regarded as a data warehouse appliance as well, despite not being solely focused on analytic use cases.
Data warehouse appliances inherit marketing claims from the category of analytic DBMS, such as: Read more
| Categories: Analytic glossary, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, EMC, Exadata, Greenplum, HP and Neoview, IBM and DB2, Microsoft and SQL*Server, Netezza, Oracle, Teradata | 4 Comments |
Notes on some basic database terminology
In a call Monday with a prominent company, I was told:
- Teradata, Netezza, Greenplum and Vertica aren’t relational.
- Teradata, Netezza, Greenplum and Vertica are all data warehouse appliances.
That, to put it mildly, is not accurate. So I shall try, yet again, to set the record straight.
In an industry where people often call a DBMS just a “database” — so that a database is something that manages a database! — one may wonder why I bother. Anyhow …
1. The products commonly known as Oracle, Exadata, DB2, Sybase, SQL Server, Teradata, Sybase IQ, Netezza, Vertica, Greenplum, Aster, Infobright, SAND, ParAccel, Exasol, Kognitio et al. all either are or incorporate relational database management systems, aka RDBMS or relational DBMS.
2. In principle, there can be difficulties in judging whether or not a DBMS is “relational”. In practice, those difficulties don’t arise — yet. Every significant DBMS still falls into one of two categories:
- Relational:
- Was designed to do relational stuff* from the get-go, even if it now does other things too.
- Supports a lot of SQL.
- Non-relational:
- Was designed primarily to do non-relational things.*
- Doesn’t support all that much SQL.
*I expect the distinction to get more confusing soon, at which point I’ll adopt terms more precise than “relational things” and “relational stuff”.
3. There are two chief kinds of relational DBMS: Read more