RE: Community Announcement: NoCOUG 2016 Spring Conference: Where SQL and NoSQL come together (with hands-on labs and cherries on top)
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 09:15:28 -0700
Message-ID: <BLU179-W258C0A5E570DABF8E81727EB790_at_phx.gbl>
re: city dwellers
There will be sharding in Oracle Database 12c Release 2 but it remains to be seen how it compares to Oracle NoSQL Database in terms of functionality, ease of use, and price. My bets are on Oracle NoSQL Database. re: Oracle is not just a relational database Oracle sells two relational databases (Oracle and Rdb), one pre-relational network database (CODASYL DBMS), two NoSQL databases (Berkeley DB and Oracle NoSQL Database) and one in-memory database (TimesTen). “Oracle Rdb is a full-featured, relational database management system for mission-critical applications on OpenVMS platforms.” (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/database-technologies/rdb/overview/index.html) “Oracle TimesTen In-Memory Database is a full-featured, memory-optimized, relational database with persistence and recoverability. It provides applications with the instant responsiveness and very high throughput required by database-intensive applications. Deployed in the application tier, TimesTen operates on databases that fit entirely in physical memory.” (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/database-technologies/timesten/overview/index.html) “Berkeley DB is a family of embedded key-value database libraries providing scalable high-performance data management services to applications. The Berkeley DB products use simple function-call APIs for data access and management.” (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/database-technologies/berkeleydb/overview/index.html) “Oracle NoSQL Database provides a powerful and flexible transaction model that greatly simplifies the process of developing a NoSQL-based application. It scales horizontally with high availability and transparent load balancing even when dynamically adding new capacity.” (http://www.oracle.com/us/products/database/nosql/overview/index.html). “CODASYL DBMS is a multiuser, CODASYL-compliant database management system for OpenVMS operating systems. CODASYL DBMS is designed for databases of all levels of complexity, ranging from simple hierarchies to sophisticated networks with multilevel relationships. CODASYL DBMS provides a reliable operating platform for application environments where stability, high availability, and throughput are essential.” (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/products/rdb/index-086844.html)
From: rfreeman_at_businessolver.com
To: tim_at_evdbt.com; iggy_fernandez_at_hotmail.com
CC: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject: RE: Community Announcement: NoCOUG 2016 Spring Conference: Where SQL and NoSQL come together (with hands-on labs and cherries on top)
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 16:01:17 +0000
I was just thinking about the database landscape (ie: relational, NoSQL, etc) earlier today in a different context. Database ideas (I’m avoiding the word fad) come and go… look at the whole object oriented database fad that I remember from the 90’s or so… Where did that go? Then there were the XML, etc databases, Hadoop, etc..etc… There are 1000’s of potential one-off types of database applications that meet a very narrow set of needs. It seems to me that many of these niche databases take off because they do meet a very specific set of needs that are identified. It might also be that specific sets of technology become available to allow for these niche databases to be developed. There is always a huge pack of these. I love the Data Platforms Map from 451 research - it nicely makes my point for me. Database here, database there, here database, there database, everywhere database database. I think there is a database product feature lifecycle… And I think Oracle is a part of that lifecycle. In fact, I think it excels at the part it plays in the overall product life cycle. One of my mentors long ago used to liken this cycle to the following – I see Oracle as among the City Dwellers…: 1. Explorers 2. Pioneers 3. Settlers 4. City Dwellers Explorers are the true innovators – the Googles, the CERNS’s, the military or universities, etc… with cutting edge data needs that need to be addressed for which there is no current solution that is viable. This stuff is bleeding edge. It’s not close to ready for commercial or public consumption but it offers great ideas for the pioneers to take advantage of. The pioneers are those who follow up afterwards, taking advantage of what was learned by the explorers and developing it into something more useful. This could be the Googles, following up on their own products. Or, it’s someone who’s just taking advantage of the experience of the explorers and they start to produce something based on that research or some theory. In some respects I think Oracle’s first databases (pre-commercial and early commercial) were pioneer databases – where Codd and his contemporaries were the explorers. Often Pioneers tend to produce things that are very niche. The Settlers take the work of pioneers and produce nice commercial versions of their work. Sometimes they are the pioneers just building on their work, sometimes they are licensing the work of the pioneer or perhaps it’s just someone who’s building a better mousetrap based on the work of the explorers and pioneers. Sometimes, the city dwellers have noticed what the pioneers are doing and attempt to integrate their work into an existing product (ie: Oracle). These are often still very much niche databases and nice functionality, but since they are attempting to be a serious commercial product, they begin to mature and add more enterprise features. In my experience, I’ve seen the settlers often steal this niche business away from the city dwellers at first, because they perform their niche work very well. Sometimes the settlers become city dwellers – more often than not, the settlers either sell to the city dwellers or their product dies as the city dwellers move in. The city dwellers eventually take the product that the settlers have produced and integrate it into a more mainstream product. Usually these products are provide a great breadth of services, and the new niche product that has been integrated in from the settler stage is just part of a much larger suite. This is where I see Oracle excelling at. Often, in the short term, the functionality it integrates in is not as good as that provided by the settlers. But, if that product has a market, it will mature in the Oracle Database and it will overtake most, if not all, of the niche products. When you think about it, this is why Oracle does not panic when something new does not work perfectly. It know the lifecycle and it knows that it’s implementation of that product, if there is a demand for it, will improve, grow and at some point it will tend to dominate that part of the market. This is why, unless Oracle changes its vision, it’s Database will always command a significant part of market share, in my opinion. Oracle is not just a relational database – but it’s many kinds of databases and it tends to perform each of those different kinds of jobs well. Oracle knows that many customers will eventually prefer to consolidate infrastructure and reduce complexity – and when they can offer a product that does what you want it to do, and a fairly fast speed and a cost that is competitive compared to the cost of sprawling infrastructure – that is a compelling argument. Cheers.. RF
From: Tim Gorman [mailto:tim_at_evdbt.com]
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 10:16 AM
To: Robert Freeman <rfreeman_at_businessolver.com>; iggy_fernandez_at_hotmail.com
Cc: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject: Re: Community Announcement: NoCOUG 2016 Spring Conference: Where SQL and NoSQL come together (with hands-on labs and cherries on top)
I'd guess that it is not a quote, but an interpretation of actions by Oracle. Why else would they offer a Big Data Appliance based on Hadoop, and support Big Data connectors, etc?
It is one thing to pivot the entire company in a single direction. Oracle Cloud is not "some catching up", but direction for the entire corporate. Oracle has made no pretense to make a "Big Data" their focus.
It is another thing to offer a capability to augment existing capabilities (i.e. Big Data) - this is not a refutation of either relational technology nor an embrace of Big Data and NoSQL, but rather an acknowledgement that the need exists and the capability should be supported.
So interpreting these actions as admission that "relational database management systems have some catching up to do in certain specialized use-cases such as event processing" is reasonable, in my opinion.
Just my own US$0.02... maybe there really is an underlying quote in context... :)
On 5/2/16 08:54, Robert Freeman wrote: Can you source this quote from Oracle? I’d be very interested in reading it in context….
Robert
From:
oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org]
On Behalf Of Iggy Fernandez
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 2:43 AM
To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject: OT: Community Announcement: NoCOUG 2016 Spring Conference: Where SQL and NoSQL come together (with hands-on labs and cherries on top)
The inventor of relational theory, Dr. Edgar Codd, had the last word on NoSQL more than thirty years ago when he said “Only if the performance requirements are extremely severe should buyers rule out present relational DBMS products.” The bottom line is that Oracle professionals need to learn about NoSQL since, as admitted by Oracle Corporation, relational database management systems have some catching up to do in certain specialized use-cases such as event processing. Our conference director has therefore created a fabulous agenda combining the best of SQL and NoSQL (with hands-on labs and cherries on top).
The conference is free for members and their guests, first-time NoCOUG conference attendees, PayPal employees and students. Register at http://nocoug.org/rsvp.html.
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Mon May 02 2016 - 18:15:28 CEST