Re: Oracle Exadata Machine
- From: Riyaj Shamsudeen <riyaj.shamsudeen@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: kmoore@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 11:28:35 -0500
>> The customized hardware is built for that while Oracle's architecture is
mostly a
>> reconfiguration of existing Oracle features such as RAC along with new
hardware.
I must disagree with that statement. Exadata is lot more sophisticated for
such an oversimplified statement. For example, filter_predicates are applied
in exadata cells nearer to the disk and can be applied in parallel. That
alone can reduce the amount of communication between disk layer and host,
reduces buffer_cache or PGA usage, reduces cpu usage at server lavel and
improves elapsed time. More importantly, execution plan shows application
of filter predicates at that exadata cell level.
Also, rows and row pieces are returned from those cells, not just the whole
block. So, if the query is interested just few columns in a long table, then
just those columns are returned. As you can imagine, this has the ability to
reduce traffic between CPU and disk by manyfold, further reducing backplane
clog.
More importantly, this is all done in software and so underlying CPUs and
hardware can be upgraded without much pain points, reducing TCO. I have no
clue about teradata, but I heard that upgrade of "teradata hardware" usually
means replacing whole set, since teradata seems to have optimization built
in to disk & disk processor level, as against exadata like software based
optimization.
I realize that some complex join conditions are not pushed to exadata cells
yet, but this is just first release. I am sure, in future versions, these
will be pushed to exadata too.
Ouch, I sound like a marketing guy.. but, this is the fact.
Just as a disclaimer, I own no Oracle stock and I have no commercial
interest with exadata either :-)
Cheers
Riyaj Shamsudeen
Principal DBA,
Ora!nternals - http://www.orainternals.com
Specialists in Performance, Recovery and EBS11i
Blog: http://orainternals.wordpress.com
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Keith Moore <kmoore@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> We briefly looked at Netezza awhile back. The price is in the $1 million
> range. I think it would have been a good fit but for whatever reason we
> could
> not get permission to do a trial.
>
> For what it's worth, I think Neteeza has a better architecture for maximum
> raw
> performance for data warehouse queries. The customized hardware is built
> for
> that while Oracle's architecture is mostly a reconfiguration of existing
> Oracle features such as RAC along with new hardware.
>
> On the other hand, Netezza doesn't have the Oracle standard features such
> as
> PL/SQL, some of the indexing capabilities, etc.
>
> Keith
> <...snip..>
>
Other related posts:
