Vertica Systems
Analysis of columnar data warehouse DBMS vendor Vertica Systems. Related subjects include:
DATAllegro vs. Vertica and other columnar systems
Stuart Frost of DATAllegro offered an interesting counter today to columnar DBMS architectures — vertical partitioning. In particular, he told me of a 120 terabyte (growing soon to 250 terabytes) call data record database, in which a few key columns were separated out. Read more
| Categories: Columnar database management, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, DATAllegro, Kognitio, Vertica Systems | 13 Comments |
Word of the day: “Compression”
IBM sent over a bunch of success stories recently, with DB2’s new aggressive compression prominently mentioned. Mike Stonebraker made a big point of Vertica’s compression when last we talked; other column-oriented data warehouse/mart software vendors (e.g. Kognitio, SAP, Sybase) get strong compression benefits as well. Other data warehouse/mart specialists are doing a lot with compression too, although some of that is governed by please-don’t-say-anything-good-about-us NDA agreements.
Compression is important for at least three reasons:
- It saves disk space, which is a major cost issue in data warehousing.
- It saves I/O, which is the major performance issue in data warehousing.
- In well-designed systems, it can actually make on-chip execution faster, because the gains in memory speed and movement can exceed the cost of actually packing/unpacking the data. (Or so I’m told; I haven’t aggressively investigated that claim.)
When evaluating data warehouse/mart software, take a look at the vendor’s compression story. It’s important stuff.
EDIT: DATAllegro claims in a note to me that they get 3-4x storage savings via compression. They also make the observation that fewer disks ==> fewer disk failures, and spin that — as it were 🙂 — into a claim of greater reliability.
| Categories: Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Database compression, DATAllegro, IBM and DB2, SAP AG, Vertica Systems | 3 Comments |
Why Oracle and Microsoft will lose in VLDB data warehousing
I haven’t been as clear as I could have been in explaining why I think MPP/shared-nothing beats SMP/shared-everything. The answer is in a short white paper, currently bottlenecked at the sponsor’s end of the process. Here’s an excerpt from the latest draft:
There are two ways to make more powerful computers:
1. Use more powerful parts – processors, disk drives, etc.
2. Just use more parts of the same power.
Of the two, the more-parts strategy much more cost-effective. Smaller* parts are much more economical, since the bigger the part, the harder and more costly it is to avoid defects, in manufacturing and initial design alike. Consequently, all high-end computers rely on some kind of parallel processing.
*As measured in terms of capacity, transistor count, etc., not physical size. Read more
| Categories: Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, DATAllegro, Microsoft and SQL*Server, Netezza, Oracle, Parallelization, Teradata, Theory and architecture, Vertica Systems | 7 Comments |
It’s a good week for puns …
… unless you think that is inherently an oxymoron. I thought I was doing well catching and expanding on a clever pop culture reference. But the folks at columnar DBMS start-up Vertica Systems may have topped that with their slogan
The tables have turned
Ouch.
| Categories: Columnar database management, Humor, Vertica Systems | Leave a Comment |
Are row-oriented RDBMS obsolete?
If Mike Stonebraker is to be believed, the era of columnar data stores is upon us.
Whether or not you buy completely into Mike’s claims, there certainly are cool ideas in his latest columnar offering, from startup Vertica Systems. The Vertica corporate site offers little detail, but Mike tells me that the product’s architecture closely resembles that of C-Store, which is described in this November, 2005 paper.
The core ideas behind Vertica’s product are as follows. Read more
Mike Stonebraker Blasts “One Size Fits All”
When it comes to DBMS inventors, Mike Stonebraker is the next closest thing to Codd. And he’s become a huge non-believer in the idea that one DBMS architecture meets all needs.
Frankly, there isn’t much in that paper that hasn’t already been said in this blog, except for the part that is specifically relevant to one of his startups, StreamBase. Still, it’s nice to have the high-powered agreement.
More recently, the argument in that paper has been extended with a benchmark-filled follow-up based on another Stonebraker startup, Vertica.