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<https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=imgres&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj7lNvc27vMAhVIOSYKHbzzCxQQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.the451group.com%2Finformation_management%2F2014%2F11%2F18%2Fupdated-data-platforms-landscape-map%2F&psig=AFQjCNFoqhb95399DXcqjKTm-AkYSHR-Ag&ust=1462289688091806>
- 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@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 10:16 AM
To: Robert Freeman <rfreeman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; iggy_fernandez@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Iggy Fernandez
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 2:43 AM
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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<http://nocoug.org/download/2016-05/NOCOUG_Spring2016_agenda.pdf>
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.linkedin.com/redir/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnocoug%2Eorg%2Frsvp%2Ehtml&urlhash=w1Id&_t=tracking_anet>.
