Re: Questions about Postgres and Oracle
- From: Paresh Yadav <yparesh@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Kevin Closson <ora_kclosson@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 14:59:53 -0500
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<http://www.dbms2.com/2011/04/16/unpacking-the-emc-greenplum-q1-sales-disaster-rumors/>
A well-connected tipster believes:
· EMC Greenplums* 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 theyre
not knocking themselves out to inform
me<http://www.dbms2.com/2011/04/05/comments-on-emc-greenplum/>
these days, nor to inspire me with confidence in what they say.
**Im in the large majority that refers to the EMC Data Computing Division
as Greenplum or EMC Greenplum.*
Lets unpack that a bit.
First, it makes a huge difference whether were 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 a
subscription <http://www.dbms2.com/2009/10/18/greenplum-customer-notes/>
basis. One implication is that license revenue and new-sale license
revenue arent 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).<http://www.dbms2.com/2009/10/18/greenplum-customer-notes/>
Im 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, were talking about perhaps a $5-600K quota per team. That
could be reasonable or even low for a fully productive team thats 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.<http://www.dbms2.com/2009/10/18/greenplum-customer-notes/>
*Bottom line:* I havent heard anything that suggests EMC Greenplums
storage-vs.-DBMS strategic war is going well. But I also wouldnt assume
things are quite as grim as rumors
suggest.<http://www.dbms2.com/2009/10/18/greenplum-customer-notes/>
**
Regards,
Paresh
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Kevin Closson <ora_kclosson@xxxxxxxxx>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@xxxxxxxxx>
> *To:* Kevin Closson <ora_kclosson@xxxxxxxxx>
> *Cc:* kyle Hailey <kylelf@xxxxxxxxx>; "jkstill@xxxxxxxxx" <
> jkstill@xxxxxxxxx>; Sandra Becker <sbecker6925@xxxxxxxxx>; oracle-l <
> oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *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@xxxxxxxxx
> >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
>
>
> --
> //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
>
>
>
--
Thanks
Paresh
416-688-1003
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
