Re: Teradata article about exadata
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 14:47:29 -0500
Message-ID: <CAE-dsOJ3bhcTFfNLsrfs9GrwKDQT5nx7boyf+3YrxA9ZW+nNyA_at_mail.gmail.com>
slightly off topic. Has anyone worked with Netezza? The only thing I have heard about it is that it doesn't use indexes and can't handle any levels of concurrency. Its designed to do very large bulk processing of data for massive and complex warehouse environment. I believe AOL has or had this for a while.
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Ric Van Dyke <ric.van.dyke_at_hotsos.com>wrote:
> About a 1000 years ago I worked on a major Teradata implementation. There
> are some interesting similarities between the two. However as Tim mentions
> they don’t have anything like PL/SQL (at least not that I’m aware of) and
> even the SQL implementation I found lacking. At that time they did have
> the upper hand on handling massive amounts of data, however today I think
> they have lost that battle as well. Oracle can easily handle the same
> volume of data rather easily.
>
>
>
> One of the basic differences between Teradata and Oracle (Exadata or not)
> is that Teradata works form a “shared nothing” architecture and Oracle is a
> “shared everything” architecture. Each AMP in Teradata can only access
> it’s slice of the data. Where as in Oracle any instance connected to a
> database can access any and all of the data. They work from an idea that
> data needs to be sliced and diced and only one “engine” so to say should be
> able to access any part of the data. So this idea of “shared disks” is
> somewhat of a wild concept to Teradata folks. (BTW- for fault tolerance
> each AMP can access some other AMP’s data in case an AMP fails, but in
> normal processing it can only access it’s part.)
>
>
>
> *From:* oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:
> oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] *On Behalf Of *Tim Gorman
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:42 AM
> *To:* oracle-l_at_freelists.org
> *Subject:* Re: Teradata article about exadata
>
>
>
> Even prior to 12c ADO, ILM isn't unmanageable; you just have to know what
> you want and code for it.
>
> In Teradata, which (I believe) still lacks an embedded procedural language
> equivalent to PL/SQL (is this true?), this is more problematic than for
> Oracle.
>
>
>
> On 11/27/2013 7:31 AM, Justin Mungal wrote:
>
> *Oracle advocates the SAME allocation policy for data warehousing because
> it believes that in its shared disk environment this policy optimizes
> access performance across diverse access patterns to different tables.
> While it’s possible to control data allocation manually, as the number of
> tables grows, the complexity of specifying data placement manually becomes
> quickly unmanageable.*
>
>
>
> Hmm. The paper predates 12c ADO, So I'm guessing they consider 11g ILM to
> be "manual" data allocation that quickly becomes unmanageable?
>
>
>
> Marketing...
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Stephens, Chris <Chris.Stephens_at_adm.com>
> wrote:
>
> SGA/buffer cache and all the locks/latches/mutexes necessary to coordinate
> access to those buffers.
>
> Teradata doesn't implement acid as far as I know.
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From: *Dba DBA [oracledbaquestions_at_gmail.com]
> *Sent: *Tuesday, November 26, 2013 11:02 PM Central Standard Time
> *To: *ORACLE-L
> *Subject: *Teradata article about exadata
>
> This is a marketing article. I have not used teradata or exadata. I think
> Teradata is basically Oracle running on custom hardware sold by Oracle that
> is specialized for DB performance.�
>
>
>
> anyone know what they mean by "shared disk"? Its on page 2.�
>
> I'd like to avoid an oracle fan argument. I know people who have used
> teradata and find it a very a good product.�
>
>
>
> www.*teradata*.com/white-papers/*Exadata*-is-Still-Oracle/<http://www.teradata.com/white-papers/Exadata-is-Still-Oracle/>
>
>
>
> While Exadata improves Oracle�s I/O performance, Exadata
>
> does not tackle Oracle�s underlying performance and scalability
>
> problems with large-scale data warehousing that stem from
>
> its shared disk architectural foundation.
>
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
> This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which
> it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged,
> confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader
> of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent
> responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
> communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> communication in error, please notify us immediately by email reply.
>
>
>
>
>
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Wed Nov 27 2013 - 20:47:29 CET