Re: Questions about Postgres and Oracle
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:24:44 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <1356035084.20126.YahooMailNeo_at_web162802.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Yeah, I'm just not going to get in the middle of all that (financial and blog fights). I get in enough of those without joining in on others' it seems. I chimed in because I saw concerns about limits. Until I hear a customer needing more than 281 trillion rows in a single table I'm not losing sleep :-)
I aim to blog soon about flexibility. While not intrinsic PostgresSQL, Greenplum supports columnar/row, compressed/non-compressed on a per-partition basis. In fact, each column can have it's own compression type and blocksize (32K to 2MB) for what that's worth.
But the flexibility that has always drawn me to this particular technology is that you can run it on any x64 hardware with any storage you want. You can run it on physical or virtual. Your choice.
So, that all sounds like a marketing brochure and thus I'll stop there until I see a technical question that needs answered.
From: Paresh Yadav <yparesh_at_gmail.com> To: Kevin Closson <ora_kclosson_at_yahoo.com> Cc: kyle Hailey <kylelf_at_gmail.com>; "jkstill_at_gmail.com" <jkstill_at_gmail.com>; Sandra Becker <sbecker6925_at_gmail.com>; oracle-l <oracle-l_at_freelists.org> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 11:59 AM Subject: Re: Questions about Postgres and Oracle
Thanks Kevin for posting additional info about Greenplum.
This is not intended to start a flame war but to answer your concerns about how we got our data even though "Greenplum's divisional performance in that time frame would likely not have been public information since we were under EMC's umbrella" . I found the email that I wrote with contents copied from web that looked at EMC Greenplum numbers harshly. I have copy pasted my original email below between `lines demarked with "+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++".
(yes, anyone can post anything on the web.....but this was too sensitive for EMC to not notice and act upon so I had reason to believe the contents )
Since this thread is getting too long for my comfort too, I will also like to cease my activities on this thread. If I have a question, I will email you directly and please feel free to do vice versa.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++From:Paresh
Yadav
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 11:20 AM
To: ---------------------------------------Subject: EMC Greenplum - some light reading
April 16, 2011
Unpacking the EMC Greenplum
Q1 sales disaster rumors
A well-connected tipster believes:
· EMC
Greenplum’s* revenue target for Q1 had been $35 million. · Actual EMC
Greenplum revenue for Q1 was $3 million, or maybe it was $8 million. · EMC Greenplum
had 75 sales teams trying to generate this revenue. In the past I might have called Greenplum for clarification, but they’re not knocking themselves out to inform me these days, nor to inspire me with confidence in what they say.
*I’m in the large majority
that refers to the EMC Data Computing Division as “Greenplum” or “EMC Greenplum.”
Let’s unpack that a bit.
First, it makes a huge difference whether we’re talking about:
· All EMC sales
Greenplum can be said to influence.
· All Greenplum
software and appliance hardware.
· New Greenplum
software and subscription recognized revenue also. Indeed, pre-EMC Greenplum got a considerable fraction of its revenue on asubscription
basis. One implication is that “license revenue” and “new-sale license revenue” aren’t the same figure. Another is that the difference in immediate revenue between an appliance sale and a software-only subscription is drastic (8X alone for the difference between quarterly subscription and perpetual license fee, times another factor for the inclusion of hardware).
I’m also having a bit of trouble swallowing that supposed $35 million target. If we recall that the quota for the sum is always less than the sum of the quotas, we’re talking about perhaps a $5-600K quota per team. That could be reasonable or even low for a fully productive team that’s selling hardware and software together (even in a Q1). But if there really are anywhere near that many Greenplum sales teams, then a large majority are really new. And data warehouse appliances (more so than just analytic DBMS) have long sales cycles.
Bottom line: I haven’t
heard anything that suggests EMC
Greenplum’s storage-vs.-DBMS strategic war is going well. But I also wouldn’t assume things are quite as grim as rumors suggest.
Regards,
Paresh
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Kevin Closson <ora_kclosson_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
Greenplum's divisional performance in that time frame would likely not have been public information since we were under EMC's umbrella at that time.Worrying about that aspect of Greenplum would be about the same as worrying about Sun's miserable (continued) slide into the abyss (which should invoke the image of a big thing crashing down rather than a small thing climbing up).
>
>
>The OP was about limits. Greenplum limits a table to 128 TB per partition per segment. I'm working on a phase 1 POC right now with 64 nodes running 512 segments. If I don't use table partitioning I'll only be able to load 65,536 TB of data. The table is partitioned by the way and 64 nodes with 512 segments (1,024 E5-2660 cores) is 1/5th the size of our largest node-count customer (that I am aware of).
>
>
>In other words, big isn't the problem.
>
>
>With that I'll cease my activity on this thread so as to not wound tender sensibilities. Feel free to ping me directly if you want more information.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Paresh Yadav <yparesh_at_gmail.com>
>To: Kevin Closson <ora_kclosson_at_yahoo.com>
>Cc: kyle Hailey <kylelf_at_gmail.com>; "jkstill_at_gmail.com" <jkstill_at_gmail.com>; Sandra Becker <sbecker6925_at_gmail.com>; oracle-l <oracle-l_at_freelists.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 6:59 PM
>
>Subject: Re: Questions about Postgres and Oracle
>
>
>Kevin,
>Fortunately me too :) (didn't start the thread to offend the OT police.)
>
>Thanks for sharing this interesting info. I didn't know about EMC Greenplum
>UAP can do that, that sounds awesome. What other products can do so
>(EnterpriseDB)? I didn't see that as being marketed heavily by Greenplum
>(thousands of partitions) so I always assumed that they scale to large size
>dbs by clustering.
>
>On the flip side we found a very
depressing critique of Greenplum's
>financial results (which I read in I believe 2011 Nov/Dec time period and I
>have it saved somewhere to cover my back ) and wondering if this might
>reflect on the product's strength, stayed away. We don't have a big shop
>to evaluate a product so we depend on search data for level 1 evaluation.
>Looks like we missed a very important product in our evaluation (it is by
>design as we don't have lots of warm bodies to do trial and error). I will
>give this another look, thanks again!
>
>PS - I believe even though this oracle-l, it is okay to discuss Postgres as
>long as it is in compared to capabilities of Oracle database.
>
>Paresh
>
>
>On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 9:01 PM, Kevin Closson <ora_kclosson_at_yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> Beyond 100 partitions per instance, one needs to go for
clustered Postgres
>> database solution and it brings with it all the challenges of a distributed
>> databases that NoSQL databases try to solve by staying within compromise
>> that were postulated in CAP theorem (
>> http://www.julianbrowne.com/article/viewer/brewers-cap-theorem ).
>>
>> ...I didn't start the thread so I hope to not upset the OT police.
>>
>> Paresh, at the scale you speak of you need to consider one of the product
>> that embeds PostgreSQL and breaks down those walls. Once such product is
>> EMC Greenplum UAP. If you want thousands of partitions on a table or even
>> on a single column you can do so with that product. Greenplum customers are
>> routinely petabyte sized and at the core of that is an adapted PostgreSQL
>> kernel.
>>
>> Now, since this is oracle-l
I'll stop there.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>Thanks
>Paresh
>416-688-1003
>
>
>--
>http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
>
>
>
-- Thanks Paresh 416-688-1003 -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Thu Dec 20 2012 - 21:24:44 CET