Teradata
Analysis of data warehousing giant Teradata. Related subjects include:
Competitive issues in data warehouse ease of administration
The last person I spoke with at the Netezza conference on Tuesday was a customer/presenter that the company had picked out for me. One thing he said baffled me — he claimed that Netezza was a real appliance vendor, but DATallegro wasn’t, presumably due to administrability issues. Now, it wasn’t clear to me that he’d ever evaluated DATallegro, so I didn’t take this too seriously, but still the exchange brought into focus the great differences between data warehouse products in the area of administration. For example:
- Netezza has no indices at all. And no caches. And the hardware is preconfigured. This all makes administration pretty simple.
- DATallegro has almost no indices, and also has preconfigured hardware. But it has some partitioning, optionally.
- Teradata also has preconfigured hardware. It does have indices, but rather simple ones. Plus it has join indices. And it has a few more configuration options in other areas (e.g., block size) than the other appliance vendors. (Yes, I count Teradata among the appliances.)
- If you go through all the fuss of installing SAP’s applications and BI technology anyway, the incremental administration of just SAP BI Accelerator is pretty light.
- Oracle and IBM have mammothly complex indexing options, but have put large amounts of work into tools to lessen the resulting administrative burden.
- IBM offers preconfigured hardware units to simplify some installation issues.
- Come to think of it, I don’t really know how hard it is to administer columnar systems (e.g., Sybase IQ).
| Categories: Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, DATAllegro, Greenplum, IBM and DB2, Netezza, Oracle, SAP AG, Teradata | 3 Comments |
Teradata vs. the new appliance vendors, technically
Todd Walter and Randy Lea of Teradata gave generously of their time today, ducking out of their user conference, and shared their take on issues we’ve been discussing here recently. Overall, Teradata response to the data warehouse appliance guys is essentially: “Well, those may be fine for specific queries, or for data marts, but in true blended enterprise data warehouse workloads we’re superior, including in performance.”
Specific takeaways included:
| Categories: Data warehouse appliances, DATAllegro, Netezza, Teradata | 4 Comments |
I say “sequential”, you say …
I talked with Teradata today, and they called me on my use of the term “sequential.” Basically, if there’s any head movement for disk seeks, some computer science researchers wouldn’t call it “sequential.” I didn’t know that; I was just familiar with the less precise usage of the term in some vendors’ marketing and discussions.* OK, I’ll make up a new, more precise term instead. How about “coarse-grained”?
*And so we have another instance of Monash’s First Law of Commercial Semantics: Bad jargon drives out good.
| Categories: Teradata, Theory and architecture | 8 Comments |
The end of the single-server DBMS vendor
For all practical purposes, there are no DBMS vendors left advocating single-server strategies. Oracle was the last one, but it just acquired in-memory data management vendor TimesTen, which will be used as a cache in front of high-performance Oracle databases. (It will also continue to be sold for stand-alone uses, especially in the financial trading and defense/intelligence markets.)
IBM’s Viper is a server-and-a-half story, with lots of integration over a dual-server (one relational, one native XML) base. IBM also is moving aggressively in data integration/federation, with Ascential and many other acquisitions. It also sells a broad range of database products itself, including two DB2s, several Informix products, and so on.
Microsoft also has a multi-server strategy. In its case, relational, text, and MOLAP storage are more separate than in Oracle’s or even IBM’s products; again, there’s a thick layer of technology on top integrating them. An eventual move to native XML storage will, one must imagine, be handled in the same way.
Smaller vendors Sybase and Progress also offer multiple DBMS each.
Teradata is a pretty big player with only one DBMS — but it’s specialized for data warehousing. Teradata is the first to tell you you should use something else for your classical transaction processing.
The Grand Unified Integrated Database theory is, so far as I can tell, quite dead. Some people just refuse to admit that fact.