Comments on Gartner’s 2012 Magic Quadrant for Data Warehouse Database Management Systems — concepts
The 2012 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Data Warehouse Database Management Systems is out. I’ll split my comments into two posts — this one on concepts, and a companion on specific vendor evaluations.
Links:
- Maintaining working links to Gartner Magic Quadrants is an adventure. But as of early February, 2013, this link seems live.
- I also commented on the 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, and 2006 Gartner Magic Quadrants for Data Warehouse DBMS.
Let’s start by again noting that I regard Gartner Magic Quadrants as a bad use of good research. On the facts:
- Gartner collects a lot of input from traditional enterprises. I envy that resource.
- Gartner also does a good job of rounding up vendor claims about user base sizes and the like. If nothing else, you should skim the MQ report for that reason.
- Gartner observations about product feature sets are usually correct, although not so consistently that they should be relied on.
When it comes to evaluations, however, the Gartner Data Warehouse DBMS Magic Quadrant doesn’t do as well. My concerns (which overlap) start:
- The Gartner MQ conflates many different use cases into one ranking (inevitable in this kind of work, but still regrettable).
- A number of the MQ vendor evaluations seem hard to defend. So do some of Gartner’s specific comments.
- Some of Gartner’s criteria seemingly amount to “parrots back our opinions to us”.
- As do I, Gartner thinks a vendor’s business and financial strength are important. But Gartner overdoes the matter, drilling down into picky issues it can’t hope to judge, such as assessing a vendor’s “ability to generate and develop leads.” *
- The 2012 Gartner Data Warehouse DBMS Magic Quadrant is closer to being a 1-dimensional ranking than 2-dimensional, in that entries are clustered along the line x=y. This suggests strong correlation among the results on various specific evaluation criteria.
| Categories: Data integration and middleware, Data warehousing, Database compression, Emulation, transparency, portability, Hadoop, Market share and customer counts, Oracle, Text | 5 Comments |
Editing code is easier than writing it
I’ve hacked both the PHP and CSS that drive this website. But if I had to write PHP or CSS from scratch, I literally wouldn’t know how to begin.
Something similar, I suspect, is broadly true of “business analysts.” I don’t know how somebody can be a competent business analyst without being able to generate, read, and edit SQL. (Or some comparable language; e.g., there surely are business analysts who only know MDX.) I would hope they could write basic SELECT statements as well.
But does that mean business analysts are comfortable with the fancy-schmantzy extended SQL that the analytic platform vendors offer them? I would assume that many are but many others are not. And thus I advised such a vendor recently to offer sample code, and lots of it — dozens or hundreds of isolated SQL statements, each of which does a specific task.* A business analyst could reasonably be expected to edit any of those to point them his own actual databases, even though he can’t necessarily be expected to easily write such statements from scratch. Read more
| Categories: Aster Data, Data warehousing, Teradata | 3 Comments |
YCSB benchmark notes
Two different vendors recently tried to inflict benchmarks on me. Both were YCSBs, so I decided to look up what the YCSB (Yahoo! Cloud Serving Benchmark) actually is. It turns out that the YCSB:
- Was developed by — you guessed it! — Yahoo.
- Is meant to simulate workloads that fetch web pages, including the writing portions of those workloads.
- Was developed with NoSQL data managers in mind.
- Bakes in one kind of sensitivity analysis — latency vs. throughput.
- Is implemented in extensible open source code.
That actually sounds pretty good, especially the extensibility part;* it’s likely that the YCSB can be useful in a variety of product selection scenarios. Still, as recent examples show, benchmark marketing is an annoying blight upon the database industry.
*With extensibility you can test your own workloads and do your own sensitivity analyses.
A YCSB overview page features links both to the code and to the original explanatory paper. The clearest explanation of the YCSB I found there was: Read more
| Categories: Aerospike, Benchmarks and POCs, NewSQL, NoSQL, NuoDB, OLTP, Yahoo | 19 Comments |
NuoDB marketing mishegas
I must start by apologizing for giving a quote in a press release whose contents I deplore. Unlike occasions on which I’ve posted about inaccurate quotes, in this case the fault is mine. The quote is quite accurate. And NuoDB didn’t mislead me about the release’s contents; I just neglected to ask.
NuoDB evidently subscribes to the marketing fallacy:
- Big DBMS companies hit people repeatedly with marketing cudgels.
- We want to be a big DBMS company.
- Therefore we will hit people repeatedly with marketing cudgels too.
But to my taste, NuoDB’s worst travesty is not the deafening drumroll before launch (I asked off their mailing list months before), nor the claim that NuoDB’s launch would be a “big day” for the database industry (annoying but ordinary hype), nor the emergent flock of birds foofarah, nor even NuoDB’s overwrought benchmark marketing (distressingly many vendors do that).
Rather, I think NuoDB’s greatest marketing offense to date is its Codd-imitating “12 rules” for cloud database management. Read more
| Categories: Cloud computing, Clustering, NuoDB, Theory and architecture | 9 Comments |
Tokutek update
Alternate title: TokuDB updates 🙂
Now that I’ve addressed some new NewSQL entrants, namely NuoDB and GenieDB, it’s time to circle back to some more established ones. First up are my clients at Tokutek, about whom I recently wrote:
Tokutek turns a performance argument into a functionality one. In particular, Tokutek claims that TokuDB does a much better job than alternatives of making it practical for you to update indexes at OLTP speeds. Hence, it claims to do a much better job than alternatives of making it practical for you to write and execute queries that only make sense when indexes (or other analytic performance boosts) are in place.
That’s all been true since I first wrote about Tokutek and TokuDB in 2009. However, TokuDB’s technical details have changed. In particular, Tokutek has deemphasized the ideas that:
- Vaguely justified the “fractal” metaphor, namely …
- … the stuff in that post about having one block each sized for each power of 2, …
- … which seem to be a form of what is more ordinarily called “cache-oblivious” technology.
Rather, Tokutek’s new focus for getting the same benefits is to provide a separate buffer for each node of a b-tree. In essence, Tokutek is taking the usual “big blocks are better” story and extending it to indexes. TokuDB also uses block-level compression. Notes on that include: Read more
| Categories: Akiban, Database compression, Market share and customer counts, NewSQL, Tokutek and TokuDB | 7 Comments |
Introduction to NuoDB
NuoDB has an interesting NewSQL story. NuoDB’s core design goals seem to be:
- SQL.
- Transactions.
- Very flexible topology, including:
- Local replicas.
- Remote replicas.
- Easy deployment and management.
| Categories: Cache, Cloud computing, Clustering, Database compression, NewSQL, NuoDB | 5 Comments |
Introduction to GenieDB
GenieDB is one of the newer and smaller NewSQL companies. GenieDB’s story is focused on wide-area replication and uptime, coupled to claims about ease and the associated low TCO (Total Cost of Ownership).
GenieDB is in my same family of clients as Cirro.
The GenieDB product is more interesting if we conflate the existing GenieDB Version 1 and a soon-forthcoming (mid-year or so) Version 2. On that basis:
- GenieDB has three tiers.
- GenieDB’s top tier is the usual MySQL front-end.
- GenieDB’s bottom tier is either Berkeley DB or a conventional MySQL storage engine.
- GenieDB’s bottom tier stores your entire database at every node.
- If you replicate locally, GenieDB’s middle tier operates a distributed cache.
- If you replicate wide-area, GenieDB’s middle tier allows active-active/multi-master replication.
The heart of the GenieDB story is probably wide-area replication. Specifics there include: Read more
| Categories: Cache, Cloud computing, Clustering, GenieDB, Market share and customer counts, MySQL, NewSQL | 4 Comments |
NewSQL thoughts
I plan to write about several NewSQL vendors soon, but first here’s an overview post. Like “NoSQL”, the term “NewSQL” has an identifiable, recent coiner — Matt Aslett in 2011 — yet a somewhat fluid meaning. Wikipedia suggests that NewSQL comprises three things:
- OLTP- (OnLine Transaction Processing)/short-request-oriented SQL DBMS that are newer than MySQL.
- Innovative MySQL engines.
- Transparent sharding systems that can be used with, for example, MySQL.
I think that’s a pretty good working definition, and will likely remain one unless or until:
- SQL-oriented and NoSQL-oriented systems blur indistinguishably.
- MySQL (or PostgreSQL) laps the field with innovative features.
To date, NewSQL adoption has been limited.
- NewSQL vendors I’ve written about in the past include Akiban, Tokutek, CodeFutures (dbShards), Clustrix, Schooner (Membrain), VoltDB, ScaleBase, and ScaleDB, with GenieDB and NuoDB coming soon.
- But I’m dubious whether, even taken together, all those vendors have as many customers or production references as any of 10gen, Couchbase, DataStax, or Cloudant.*
That said, the problem may lie more on the supply side than in demand. Developing a competitive SQL DBMS turns out to be harder than developing something in the NoSQL state of the art.
Data(base) virtualization — a terminological mess
Data/database virtualization seems to be a hot subject right now, and vendors of a broad variety of different technologies are all claiming to be in the space. A terminological mess has ensued, as Monash’s First and Third Laws of Commercial Semantics are borne out in spades.
If something is like “virtualization”, then it should resemble hypervisors such as VMware. To me:
- The core feature of a hypervisor is that it allows many somethings to run and coexist where ordinarily only one something would come into play. Here the “many somethings” are virtual machines and what’s going on inside them, and the “one something” is the ordinary operating system/hardware computing stack.
- A core feature of original VMware was that the “many somethings” could be quite different — for example, the operating environments of numerous different hardware systems you wanted to decommission, or of new systems that you didn’t want to buy quite yet.
- Important features of hypervisors include:
- The ability to have multiple virtual machines run side by side at once, safely.
- Flexible and powerful workload management if the virtual machines do contend for resources.
- Easy management.
- The negative feature of having sufficiently low overhead.
Anything that claims to be “like virtualization” should be viewed in that light. Read more
| Categories: Clustering, Data integration and middleware, ScaleDB, Theory and architecture, Transparent sharding | 5 Comments |
Spark, Shark, and RDDs — technology notes
Spark and Shark are interesting alternatives to MapReduce and Hive. At a high level:
- Rather than persisting data to disk after every step, as MapReduce does, Spark instead writes to something called RDDs (Resilient Distributed Datasets), which can live in memory.
- Rather than being restricted to maps and reduces, Spark has more numerous primitive operations, including map, reduce, sample, join, and group-by. You can do these more or less in any order. All the primitives are parallel with respect to the RDDs.
- Shark is a lot like Hive, only rewritten (in significant parts) and running over Spark.
- There’s an approach to launching tasks quickly — ~5 milliseconds or so — that I unfortunately didn’t grasp.
The key concept here seems to be the RDD. Any one RDD:
- Is a collection of Java objects, which should have the same or similar structure.
- Can be partitioned/distributed and shuffled/redistributed across the cluster.
- Doesn’t have to be entirely in memory at once.
Otherwise, there’s a lot of flexibility; an RDD can be a set of tuples, a collection of XML documents, or whatever other reasonable kind of dataset you want. And I gather that:
- At the moment, RDDs expire at the end of a job.
- This restriction will be lifted in a future release.