NoSQL Benchmarks NoSQL use cases NoSQL Videos NoSQL Hybrid Solutions NoSQL Presentations Big Data Hadoop MapReduce Pig Hive Flume Oozie Sqoop HDFS ZooKeeper Cascading Cascalog BigTable Cassandra HBase Hypertable Couchbase CouchDB MongoDB OrientDB RavenDB Jackrabbit Terrastore Amazon DynamoDB Redis Riak Project Voldemort Tokyo Cabinet Kyoto Cabinet memcached Amazon SimpleDB Datomic MemcacheDB M/DB GT.M Amazon Dynamo Dynomite Mnesia Yahoo! PNUTS/Sherpa Neo4j InfoGrid Sones GraphDB InfiniteGraph AllegroGraph MarkLogic Clustrix CouchDB Case Studies MongoDB Case Studies NoSQL at Adobe NoSQL at Facebook NoSQL at Twitter



oracle: All content tagged as oracle in NoSQL databases and polyglot persistence

Two questions about the Oracle in-memory database

Two questions about the Oracle in-memory database, announced in Sep. 2013, re-announced now, and coming… sometime later:

  1. Why would the performance improvement be visible only a specific hardware?

    Ellison said users can expect real-time analytics queries 100 times faster and online transaction processing that is two times faster as long as they are using hardware that supports the Oracle 12c database.

    I’ll assume that this could only mean that these results will be seen when data fits in memory. And not that one will need custom hardware to enable this feature. As a side note, I’m not sure I’m reading the announcement correctly, but it looks like a paying Oracle database customer will have to pay extra for the in-memory option.

  2. Can anyone explain how data can be stored both in columnar and row format?

    Additionally, the software will allow people to store data in both columns (used for analytics) and rows (used for transactions) as opposed to only one method; Ellison described this function as being “the magic of Oracle.”

    Magic has very little to do with databases and performance.

Original title and link: Two questions about the Oracle in-memory database (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

You want NoSQL? I’ll give you memcached

Tony Darnell in Use MySQL to store NoSQL and SQL data in the same database using memcached and InnoDB | Scripting MySQL:

With MySQL version 5.6 (and above), you have the ability to store and retrieve NoSQL data, using NoSQL commands, while keeping the data inside a MySQL InnoDB database. So, you can use NoSQL and SQL at the same time, on the same data, stored in the same database. And the beauty is that it takes just a few minutes to setup. This post will provide you with a quick lesson on how to setup NoSQL on a MySQL InnoDb database.

I see this trivialization of the term NoSQL quite frequently in the communications signed by Oracle: “Oh, you want NoSQL? Take memcached. Now shut up!” This is quite disrespectful to their customers and the developer community in general.

Original title and link: You want NoSQL? I’ll give you memcached (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

Price Comparison for Big Data Appliance and Hadoop

The main differences between Oracle Big Data Appliance and a DIY approach are:

  1. A DIY system - at list price with basic installation but no optimization - is a staggering $220 cheaper as an initial purchase
  2. A DIY system - at list price with basic installation but no optimization - is almost $250,000 more expensive over 3 years.
  3. The support for the DIY system includes five (5) vendors. Your hardware support vendor, the OS vendor, your Hadoop vendor, your encryption vendor as well as your database vendor. Oracle Big Data Appliance is supported end-to- end by a single vendor: Oracle
  4. Time to value. While we trust that your IT staff will get the DIY system up and running, the Oracle system allows for a much faster “loading dock to loading data” time. Typically a few days instead of a few weeks (or even months)
  5. Oracle Big Data Appliance is tuned and configured to take advantage of the software stack, the CPUs and InfiniBand network it runs on
  6. Any issue we, you or any other BDA customer finds in the system is fixed for all customers. You do not have a unique configuration, with unique issues on top of the generic issues.

This is coming from Oracle. Now, without nitpicking prices — I’m pretty sure you’ll find better numbers for the different components — how do you sell Hadoop to the potential customer that took a look at this?

Original title and link: Price Comparison for Big Data Appliance and Hadoop (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)


Count Distinct Compared on Top 4 SQL Databases

Performance and query plans for count distinct :

Truly, the gauntlet had been thrown, and we are here to answer. We ran the queries on Postgres 9.3, MySQL 5.6, SQL Server 2012 SE 11.0, and Oracle SE1 11.2.

count distinct performance

Interestingly, but quite expected, the query plans for queries in SQL Server and Oracle were identical. What’s intriguing is how with a more “naïve” query plan, they both outperformed MySQL and PostgreSQL.

Original title and link: Count Distinct Compared on Top 4 SQL Databases (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)


Maybe Oracle isn't the MySQL villain so many people think

Matt Asay digs a bit under the quite widely spread not really confirmed gut feelings that Oracle is screwing MySQL:

In sum, I suspect most MySQL users today are grateful for the Oracle’s contributions to MySQL. Its backtracking on core community best practices are regrettable but understandable, in light of the company’s security policies. Arguably, these should be revisited so that MySQL can benefit from Oracle’s technical leadership while giving the MySQL community the unfettered access to information that will increase its trust in Oracle’s technical leadership.

With the risk of saying “I’ve told you”, I’ve always said that Oracle has no interest in killing MySQL. Oracle didn’t kill BerkleyDB and they didn’t kill InnoDB while MySQL was still independent or under Sun. Killing it right now when it’s bringing potential customers into the door makes no sense.

The fact that Oracle’s policies and management practices are not community friendly is a different matter. But I’d bet that digging deeper into these would reveal that other companies that are perceived as open and community friendly are not very different.

Original title and link: Maybe Oracle isn’t the MySQL villain so many people think (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)


Blame it on… Oracle style

The Oracle version of Let’s see:

  1. Jeff Merkley places Cover Oregon blame solely on its contractor: Oracle:

    “Oracle was contracted to deliver the exchange,” Merkley said, “they promised it would be fairly delivered on time and it’s in complete dysfunction.”

  2. Could A Tech Giant Build A Better Health Exchange? Maybe Not :

    Oregon has spent more than $40 million to build its own online health care exchange. It gave that money to a Silicon Valley titan, Oracle, but the result has been a disaster of missed deadlines, a nonworking website and a state forced to process thousands of insurance applications on paper.

    Some Oregon officials were sounding alarms about the tech company’s work on the state’s online health care exchange as early as last spring. Oracle was behind schedule and, worse, didn’t seem able to offer an estimate of what it would take to get the state’s online exchange up and running.

  3. Technology Delays Plague Cover Oregon:

    The biggest reason Cover Oregon’s website lags behind is because Oracle didn’t meet its deadline and should have begun testing last May, rather than delaying until this summer when it was too late to resolve the problems it encountered, King said. Oracle has been paid handsomely by Cover Oregon for its consulting and software development. It’s received $43.2 million this year – accounting for $11.1 for hardware, $9.5 million for software and $22.6 million for consulting.

So even if you use Oracle for everything—hardware, software, and consulting payed with a paltry $43.2mil in 2013, you can still fail? What a surprise!

✚ Who’ll take the blame if and Cover Oregon would just switch their contractors?

✚ Could we have these played on repeat for those blaming MarkLogic for’s failure? Also for those that accepted this excuse?

Original title and link: Blame it on… Oracle style (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

Oracle’s Big Data Components

This HadoopSphere post list 8 data-related products that Oracle has in its portfolio. I’m not sure it’s complete though as I didn’t see TimesTen, Coherence, etc.

It’s nice to be able to tell your customers, potential and existing, that you have tools for everything. The tricky part is in integrating these, making them work seemlessly together, and being able to offer a clear picture to every user. Or if you are Oracle, you could charge customers for this part too.

Original title and link: Oracle’s Big Data Components (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

Nokia’s Big Data Ecosystem: Hadoop, Teradata, Oracle, MySQL

Nokia’s big data ecosystem consists of a centralized, petabyte-scale Hadoop cluster that is interconnected with a 100-TB Teradata enterprise data warehouse (EDW), numerous Oracle and MySQL data marts, and visualization technologies that allow Nokia’s 60,000+ users around the world tap into the massive data store. Multi-structured data is constantly being streamed into Hadoop from the relational systems, and hundreds of thousands of Scribe processes run every day to move data from, for example, servers in Singapore to a Hadoop cluster in the UK. Nokia is also a big user of Apache Sqoop and Apache HBase.

In the coming years you’ll hear more often stories—sales pitches—about single unified platforms solving all these problems at once. But platforms that will survive and thrive are those that will accomplish two things:

  1. keep the data gates open: in and out.
  2. work with different other platform to make this efficiently for users

Original title and link: Nokia’s Big Data Ecosystem: Hadoop, Teradata, Oracle, MySQL (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)


Wikipedia Migrates to MariaDB... but facts are facts

Jon Buys:

There was, and continues to be, concern over Oracle’s treatment of the open source competitor to their own Oracle database. I personally have wondered what motivation, if any, Oracle has to maintain MySQL. They may simply be milking the revenue stream created by MySQL AB until the well goes dry. Since MariaDB is surpassing MySQL in performance and community goodwill, that day may come sooner rather than later.

A couple of little known things:

  1. Oracle has been house for InnoDB since 2005. InnoDB was and continues to be the default, recommended engine for MySQL. Before and after Oracle acquired MySQL through Sun Microsystems.
  2. Oracle has been house for Sleepycat’s BerkleyDB since 2006. Those products are definitely not dead. Community-wise maybe they haven’t put much effort into extending it.

Facts are facts.

Original title and link: Wikipedia Migrates to MariaDB… but facts are facts (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)


Oracle and DataStax on TechCrunch

I have some serious doubts about Alex Williams’s post on TechCrunch about the connection between the recently announced results from Oracle and DataStax. To exemplify, these paragraphs don’t make a lot of sense to me:

The reason for the drop has more to do with the enterprise acceptance of online applications more than anything else, said Datatastax CEO Billy Bosworth in an interview last week.

Does it mean that enterprises are discovering online applications now?

When companies come to Datastax, they say the number one thing they need is security, Bosworth said. They are building from day one to avoid disaster scenarios.

DataStax introduced security features just recently, so I’ll assume Billy Bosworth was actually referring to fault tolerance and resilience. What ended up in the article is a different story.

Datastax has its own challenges. It competes with Amazon Web Services and all the other NoSQL providers such as 10gen.

Once again I’ll assume the author wanted to refer to Amazon Dynamo (and RDS?), but thought it’ll read better as “Amazon Web Services”.

Actually, now that I read it twice, I realize that I shouldn’t link to it. But at least I can suggest you to waste no time with it.

Original title and link: Oracle and DataStax on TechCrunch (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)


Oracle Paper: The Cost of Do-It-Yourself Hadoop vs Oracle Big Data Appliance

Based on ESG’s modeling of a medium-sized Hadoop-oriented big data project, the preconfigured Oracle Big Data Appliance is 39% less costly than a “build” equivalent do-it-yourself infrastructure. And using Oracle Big Data Appliance will cut the project length by about one-third. For most enterprises planning to take big data beyond experimentation and proof-of- concept, ESG suggests skipping the idea of in-house development, on-going management, and expansion of your own big data infrastructure, to instead look to purpose-built infrastructure solutions such as Oracle Big Data Appliance.

This is an extract from Oracle’s whitepaper “Getting Real about Big Data: Build Versus Buy“. It’s a nice reading excercise to better understand how the database leader is positioning their Oracle Big Data Appliance compared to Hadoop’s commodity-hardware cluster.

I’d love seeing the equivalent paper from Hortonworks1.

  1. The only reason I’m referring directly to Hortonworks and not also Cloudera is that the Hadoop part of Oracle Big Data Appliance is offered by Cloudera

Original title and link: Oracle Paper: The Cost of Do-It-Yourself Hadoop vs Oracle Big Data Appliance (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

DataStax's Reaction to MySQL 5.6: Oracle’s MySQL Misses the NoSQL Mark

Jonathan Ellis in a post about MySQL 5.6 and how Oracle got the whole NoSQL wrong, considering NoSQL is, in this exact order, about scaling, continuous availability, flexibility, performance, and queryability:

The big news for MySQL 5.6 was the inclusion of “NoSQL” features in the form of a memcached api for get and put operations.

In cases like this, it’s tough to tell whether Oracle got this so wrong deliberately to sow confusion in the market, or because they really think that’s what NoSQL is about.

I know Jonathan Ellis has always had very strong opinions about the technical superiority of Cassandra and Cassandra is indeed a very solid solution, but I’m always reluctant to calling a competitor stupid and using the myopic argument “if I’m good at X and suck at Y, then what everyone is looking for is only X”.

Original title and link: DataStax’s Reaction to MySQL 5.6: Oracle’s MySQL Misses the NoSQL Mark (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)