Re: Questions about Postgres and Oracle

  • From: Kevin Closson <ora_kclosson@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: Paresh Yadav <yparesh@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:24:44 -0800 (PST)

Yeah, I'm just not going to get in the middle of all that (financial and blog 
fights). I get in enough of those without joining in on others' it seems. 
I chimed in because I saw concerns about limits. Until I hear a customer 
needing more than 281 trillion rows in a single table I'm not losing sleep :-)

I aim to blog soon about flexibility. While not intrinsic PostgresSQL, 
Greenplum supports columnar/row, compressed/non-compressed on a per-partition 
basis. In fact, each column can have it's own compression type and blocksize 
(32K to 2MB) for what that's worth.

But the flexibility that has always drawn me to this particular technology is 
that you can run it on any x64 hardware with any storage you want. You can run 
it on physical or virtual. Your choice. 

So, that all sounds like a marketing brochure and thus I'll stop there until I 
see a technical question that needs answered.




________________________________
 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: Thursday, December 20, 2012 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: Questions about Postgres and Oracle
 

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
A well-connected tipster believes:
·         EMC
Greenplum’s* 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 they’re not knocking themselves out to inform me these 
days, nor to inspire
me with confidence in what they say. 
*I’m in the large majority
that refers to the EMC Data Computing Division as “Greenplum” or “EMC
Greenplum.”
Let’s unpack that a bit.
First, it makes a huge difference whether we’re
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 asubscription
 
 basis. One implication is that “license revenue” and
“new-sale license revenue” aren’t 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).
I’m 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, we’re talking about perhaps a $5-600K quota per team. That
could be reasonable or even low for a fully productive team that’s 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.
Bottom line: I haven’t
heard anything that suggests EMC
Greenplum’s storage-vs.-DBMS strategic war is going well. But I also 
wouldn’t assume things are quite as
grim as rumors suggest.

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:

  1. Home
  2. oracle-l
  3. Archive
  4. 12-2012