MicroStrategy
Analysis and discussion of MicroStrategy and its business intelligence product line.
BI and quasi-DBMS
I’m on two overlapping posting kicks, namely “lessons from the past” and “stuff I keep saying so might as well also write down”. My recent piece on Oracle as the new IBM is an example of both themes. In this post, another example, I’d like to memorialize some points I keep making about business intelligence and other analytics. In particular:
- BI relies on strong data access capabilities. This is always true. Duh.
- Therefore, BI and other analytics vendors commonly reinvent the data management wheel. This trend ebbs and flows with technology cycles.
Similarly, BI has often been tied to data integration/ETL (Extract/Transform/Load) functionality.* But I won’t address that subject further at this time.
*In the Hadoop/Spark era, that’s even truer of other analytics than it is of BI.
My top historical examples include:
- The 1970s analytic fourth-generation languages (RAMIS, NOMAD, FOCUS, et al.) commonly combined reporting and data management.
- The best BI visualization technology of the 1980s, Executive Information Systems (EIS), was generally unsuccessful. The core reason was a lack of what we’d now call drilldown. Not coincidentally, EIS vendors — notably leader Comshare — didn’t do well at DBMS-like technology.
- Business Objects, one of the pioneers of the modern BI product category, rose in large part on the strength of its “semantic layer” technology. (If you don’t know what that is, you can imagine it as a kind of virtual data warehouse modest enough in its ambitions to actually be workable.)
- Cognos, the other pioneer of modern BI, depending on capabilities for which it needed a bundled MOLAP (Multidimensional OnLine Analytic Processing) engine.
- But Cognos later stopped needing that engine, which underscores my point about technology ebbing and flowing.
MongoDB is growing up
I caught up with my clients at MongoDB to discuss the recent MongoDB 2.6, along with some new statements of direction. The biggest takeaway is that the MongoDB product, along with the associated MMS (MongoDB Management Service), is growing up. Aspects include:
- An actual automation and management user interface, as opposed to the current management style, which is almost entirely via scripts (except for the monitoring UI).
- That’s scheduled for public beta in May, and general availability later this year.
- It will include some kind of integrated provisioning with VMware, OpenStack, et al.
- One goal is to let you apply database changes, software upgrades, etc. without taking the cluster down.
- A reasonable backup strategy.
- A snapshot copy is made of the database.
- A copy of the log is streamed somewhere.
- Periodically — the default seems to be 6 hours — the log is applied to create a new current snapshot.
- For point-in-time recovery, you take the last snapshot prior to the point, and roll forward to the desired point.
- A reasonable locking strategy!
- Document-level locking is all-but-promised for MongoDB 2.8.
- That means what it sounds like. (I mention this because sometimes an XML database winds up being one big document, which leads to confusing conversations about what’s going on.)
- Security. My eyes glaze over at the details, but several major buzzwords have been checked off.
- A general code rewrite to allow for (more) rapid addition of future features.
Hortonworks, Hadoop, Stinger and Hive
I chatted yesterday with the Hortonworks gang. The main subject was Hortonworks’ approach to SQL-on-Hadoop — commonly called Stinger — but at my request we cycled through a bunch of other topics as well. Company-specific notes include:
- Hortonworks founder J. Eric “Eric14” Baldeschwieler is no longer at Hortonworks, although I imagine he stays closely in touch. What he’s doing next is unspecified, except by the general phrase “his own thing”. (Derrick Harris has more on Eric’s departure.)
- John Kreisa still is at Hortonworks, just not as marketing VP. Think instead of partnerships and projects.
- ~250 employees.
- ~70-75 subscription customers.
Our deployment and use case discussions were a little confused, because a key part of Hortonworks’ strategy is to support and encourage the idea of combining use cases and workloads on a single cluster. But I did hear:
- 10ish nodes for a typical starting cluster.
- 100ish nodes for a typical “data lake” committed adoption.
- Teradata UDA (Unified Data Architecture)* customers sometimes (typically?) jumping straight to a data lake scenario.
- A few users in the 10s of 1000s of nodes. (Obviously Yahoo is one.)
- HBase used in >50% of installations.
- Hive probably even more than that.
- Hortonworks is seeing a fair amount of interest in Windows Hadoop deployments.
*By the way — Teradata seems serious about pushing the UDA as a core message.
Ecosystem notes, in Hortonworks’ perception, included:
- Cloudera is obviously Hortonworks’ biggest distro competitor. Next is IBM, presumably in its blue-forever installed base. MapR is barely on the radar screen; Pivotal’s likely rise hasn’t yet hit sales reports.
- Hortonworks evidently sees a lot of MicroStrategy and Tableau, and some Platfora and Datameer, the latter two at around the same level of interest.
- Accumulo is a big deal in the Federal government, and has gotten a few health care wins as well. Its success is all about security. (Note: That’s all consistent with what I hear elsewhere.)
I also asked specifically about OpenStack. Hortonworks is a member of the OpenStack project, contributes nontrivially to Swift and other subprojects, and sees Rackspace as an important partner. But despite all that, I think strong Hadoop/OpenStack integration is something for the indefinite future.
Hortonworks’ views about Hadoop 2.0 start from the premise that its goal is to support running a multitude of workloads on a single cluster. (See, for example, what I previously posted about Tez and YARN.) Timing notes for Hadoop 2.0 include:
- It’s been in preview/release candidate/commercial beta mode for weeks.
- Q3 is the goal; H2 is the emphatic goal.
- Yahoo’s been in production with YARN >8 months, and has no MapReduce 1 clusters left. (Yahoo has >35,000 Hadoop nodes.)
- The last months of delays have been mainly about sprucing up various APIs and protocols, which may need to serve for a similar multi-year period as Hadoop 1’s have. But there also was some YARN stabilization into May.
Frankly, I think Cloudera’s earlier and necessarily incremental Hadoop 2 rollout was a better choice than Hortonworks’ later big bang, even though the core-mission aspect of Hadoop 2.0 is what was least ready. HDFS (Hadoop Distributed File System) performance, NameNode failover and so on were well worth having, and it’s more than a year between Cloudera starting supporting them and when Hortonworks is offering Hadoop 2.0.
Hortonworks’ approach to doing SQL-on-Hadoop can be summarized simply as “Make Hive into as good an analytic RDBMS as possible, all in open source”. Key elements include: Read more
Comments on Gartner’s 2012 Magic Quadrant for Data Warehouse Database Management Systems — evaluations
To my taste, the most glaring mis-rankings in the 2012/2013 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Data Warehouse Database Management are that it is too positive on Kognitio and too negative on Infobright. Secondarily, it is too negative on HP Vertica, and too positive on ParAccel and Actian/VectorWise. So let’s consider those vendors first.
Gartner seems confused about Kognitio’s products and history alike.
- Gartner calls Kognitio an “in-memory” DBMS, which is not accurate.
- Gartner doesn’t remark on Kognitio’s worst-in-class* compression.
- Gartner gives Kognitio oddly high marks for a late, me-too Hadoop integration strategy.
- Gartner writes as if Kognitio’s next attempt at the US market will be the first one, which is not the case.
- Gartner says that Kognitio pioneered data warehouse SaaS (Software as a Service), which actually has existed since the pre-relational 1970s.
Gartner is correct, however, to note that Kognitio doesn’t sell much stuff overall.
* non-existent
In the cases of HP Vertica, Infobright, ParAccel, and Actian/VectorWise, the 2012 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Data Warehouse Database Management’s facts are fairly accurate, but I dispute Gartner’s evaluation. When it comes to Vertica: Read more
The 2011/2012 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Business Intelligence Platforms — company-by-company comments
This is one of a series of posts on business intelligence and related analytic technology subjects, keying off the 2011/2012 version of the Gartner Magic Quadrant for Business Intelligence Platforms. The four posts in the series cover:
- Overview comments about the 2011/2012 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Business Intelligence Platforms, as well as a link to the actual document.
- Business intelligence industry trends — some of Gartner’s thoughts but mainly my own.
- (This post) Company-by-company comments based on the 2011/2012 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Business Intelligence Platforms.
- Third-party analytics, pulling together and expanding on some points I made in the first three posts.
The heart of Gartner Group’s 2011/2012 Magic Quadrant for Business Intelligence Platforms was the company comments. I shall expound upon some, roughly in declining order of Gartner’s “Completeness of Vision” scores, dubious though those rankings may be. Read more
Business intelligence industry trends
This is one of a series of posts on business intelligence and related analytic technology subjects, keying off the 2011/2012 version of the Gartner Magic Quadrant for Business Intelligence Platforms. The four posts in the series cover:
- Overview comments about the 2011/2012 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Business Intelligence Platforms, as well as a link to the actual document.
- (This post) Business intelligence industry trends — some of Gartner’s thoughts but mainly my own.
- Company-by-company comments based on the 2011/2012 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Business Intelligence Platforms.
- Third-party analytics, pulling together and expanding on some points I made in the first three posts.
Besides company-specific comments, the 2011/2012 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Business Intelligence (BI) Platforms offered observations on overall BI trends in a “Market Overview” section. I have mixed feelings about Gartner’s list. In particular:
- Not inconsistently with my comments on departmental analytics, Gartner sees actual BI business users as favoring ease of getting the job done, while IT departments are more concerned about full feature sets, integration, corporate standards, and license costs.
- However, Gartner says as a separate point that all kinds of users want to relieve some of the complexity of BI, and really of analytics in general. I agree, but don’t think Gartner did a great job in outlining how this complexity reduction could really work.
- Gartner is bullish on mobile business intelligence, but doesn’t really contradict my more skeptical take. Even as it confesses that mobile BI use cases are somewhat thin (my word, not Gartner’s, and no pun intended), it sees mobile BI rapidly becoming mainstream technology.
- Gartner makes a distinction between “data discovery” tools and “enterprise BI” platforms. By “data discovery” I think Gartner means what I’d call the “pattern discovery” focus of investigative analytics. Anyhow, it seems that Gartner:
- Sees users as being confused about how the traditional pattern-monitoring kinds of BI fit with the newer emphasis on investigative analytics, and …
- … shares that confusion itself.
- Gartner observes that “Most BI platforms are deployed as systems of performance measurement, not for decision support.” It evidently sees this as a bad tendency, which is thankfully changing. Automated decisioning is part of the fix Gartner sees, along with collaboration. While I agree on both counts, Gartner oddly doesn’t also connect this to the general rise of investigative analytics.
- Gartner also had a catch-all trend of “new use cases”, listing some examples, but also sort of confessing it wasn’t doing a great job of articulating the point. I think that part of the difficulty is contortions as to what is or isn’t BI; Gartner seems to run into expositional difficulties whenever it touches on the core point that analytics isn’t all about performance-monitoring BI. Another problem is that Gartner doesn’t seem to have really thought through what does and doesn’t work in the area of analytic applications.
Here’s the forest that I suspect Gartner is missing for the trees:
- Even though all-in-one enterprise BI platforms are great at getting data to a multitude of endpoints …
- … and even though the number of endpoints for data are increasing (more users, more devices) …
- … all-in-one enterprise BI platforms fall short in helping the data be used once it arrives …
- … and all-in-one enterprise BI platform vendors will find it hard to catch up with other vendors’ data-use capabilities.
| Categories: Business intelligence, Business Objects, IBM and DB2, Microsoft and SQL*Server, MicroStrategy, Oracle, SAP AG | 11 Comments |
Teradata’s future product strategy
I think Teradata’s future product strategy is coming into focus. I’ll start by outlining some particular aspects, and then show how I think it all ties together.
Read more
| Categories: Business intelligence, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Kickfire, MicroStrategy, Solid-state memory, Storage, Teradata | 5 Comments |
Microstrategy technology notes
Earlier this week, Microstrategy made Mark LaRow available to talk about technology. The proximate reason was my recent mention of Microstrategy’s mobile BI emphasis, but we also touched on Microstrategy’s approach to in-memory business intelligence and some other subjects. We didn’t go into the depth of a similar conversation I had recently with Qlik Technologies, but I found it quite interesting even so.
Highlights of the in-memory BI discussion included:
- Microstrategy’s in-memory BI data structure is some kind of simple array, redundantly called a “vector array.” A more precise description was not available.
- While early versions of the capability have been around since 2002, Microstrategy’s in-memory BI capability only got serious with Microstrategy 9, which was released in Q1 of 2009. In particular, Microstrategy 9 was the first time in-memory BI had full security.
- Mark says a core reason for having their own in-memory BI is because Microstrategy has more smarts to predict which aggregates will or won’t be needed. Strictly speaking, that can’t be argued with. Vendors like Infobright would argue they come close enough to that ideal as to make little practical difference – but I’m also cheating by naming Infobright, which is particularly focused in that direction.
- Microstrategy in-memory BI compresses data by about 2X. Mark didn’t know which compression algorithm was used.
- The limitation on what’s in-memory is, of course, how much RAM you can fit on an SMP box. Microstrategy has seen up to ½ terabyte deployments.
- In-memory Microstrategy data structures are typically built during the batch window, for performance reasons. This is not, strictly speaking, mandatory, but I didn’t get a sense that Microstrategy was being used for much that resembled real-time business intelligence.
- Mark said Microstrategy has no interest in using solid-state memory to expand the reach of its in-memory BI. Frankly, if Microstrategy doesn’t change that stance, it’s in-memory BI capabilities are unlikely to stay significant for too many years.
Another key subject we discussed was Microstrategy’s view of dashboards. Read more
| Categories: Business intelligence, Data warehousing, Memory-centric data management, MicroStrategy | Leave a Comment |
How should somebody teach themselves database and programming skills?
From time to time, I get in a conversation with somebody who is:
- Unemployed, underemployed, or otherwise desirous of having more commercial skills.
- Not a programmer, but desirous of having some technical skills.
- Astute enough to realize s/he will never be a serious techie.
I generally have two models in mind when guiding such a person:
- Analytics/business intelligence/stats.
- Website building.
Those are both useful skill sets for people who aren’t full-time techies, the first perhaps best for those who are more quantitative and big-company-friendly, the second perhaps better for the creative and/or rebellious types.
So what SPECIFICALLY should one guide them to do? My initial thoughts include: Read more
| Categories: Business intelligence, MicroStrategy, MySQL, Open source | 35 Comments |
False-positive alerts, non-collaborative BI, inaccurate metrics, and what to do about them
I’ve been hinting at some points for quite a long time, without really spelling them out in written form. So let’s fix that. I believe:
- “Push” alerting technology could be much more granular and useful, but is being held back by the problem of false positives.
- Metrics passed down from on high didn’t work too well in Stalin’s USSR, and haven’t improved sufficiently since.
- A large, necessary piece of the solution to both problems is a great engine for setting and modifying metrics definitions.
I shall explain. Read more