February 2nd, 2012 — Data management
Thanks to everyone who has already taken part in our survey exploring changing attitudes to MySQL following its acquisition by Oracle and examining the competitive dynamic between MySQL and other database technologies, including NoSQL and NewSQL.
The response has been great and even a quick look at the results makes for interesting reading, particularly in the light of our previous findings which indicated declining MySQL usage.
I am really looking forward to having the opportunity for a deep dive into the results and break out the figures to get a better understanding of the potential impact of alternative MySQL distribution and support providers, as well as NoSQL and NewSQL, on continued usage of MySQL.
The survey results will be made freely available on our blogs, as well as being included in a long format report containing our additional analysis and research related to the MySQL ecosystem and competitive dynamic.
Right now, however, is your last chance to contribute to the survey and get your voice heard. There are just 12 questions to answer, spread over four pages, and the entire survey should take no longer than five minutes to complete. All individual responses are of course confidential.
The survey will close in 24 hours.
January 24th, 2012 — Data management
January 23rd, 2012 — Data management
If you’re a MySQL user, tell us about your adoption plans by taking our current survey.
Back in late 2009, at the height of the concern about Oracle’s imminent acquisition of Sun Microsystems and MySQL, 451 Research conducted a survey of open source software users to assess their database usage and attitudes towards Oracle.
The results provided an interesting snapshot of the potential implications of the acquisition and the concerns of MySQL users and even, so I am told, became part of the European Commission’s hearing into the proposed acquisition (used by both sides, apparently, which says something about both our independence and the malleability of data).
One of the most interesting aspects concerned the apparently imminent decline in the usage of MySQL. Of the 285 MySQL users in our 2009 survey, only 90.2% still expected to be using it two years later, and only 81.8% in 2014.
Other non-MySQL users expected to adopt the open source database after 2009, but the overall prediction was decline. While 82.1% of our sample of 347 open source users were using MySQL in 2009, only 78.7% expected to be using it in 2011, declining to 72.3% in 2014.
This represented an interesting snapshot of sentiment towards MySQL, but the result also had to be taken with a pinch of salt given the significant level of concern regarding MySQL future at the time the survey was conducted.
The survey also showed that only 17% of MySQL users thought that Oracle should be allowed to keep MySQL, while 14% of MySQL users were less likely to use MySQL if Oracle completed the acquisition.
That is why we are asking similar questions again, in our recently launched MySQL/NoSQL/NewSQL survey.
More than two years later Oracle has demonstrated that it did not have nefarious plans for MySQL. While its stewardship has not been without controversial moments, Oracle has also invested in the MySQL development process and improved the performance of the core product significantly. There are undoubtedly users that have turned away from MySQL because of Oracle but we also hear of others that have adopted the open source database specifically because of Oracle’s backing.
That is why we are now asking MySQL users to again tell us about their database usage, as well as attitudes to MySQL following its acquisition by Oracle. Since the database landscape has changed considerably late 2009, we are now also asking about NoSQL and NewSQL adoption plans.
Is MySQL usage really in decline, or was the dip suggested by our 2009 survey the result of a frenzy of uncertainty and doubt given the imminent acquisition. Will our current survey confirm or contradict that result? If you’re a MySQL user, tell us about your adoption plans by taking our current survey.
January 18th, 2012 — Data management
I’ve just launched a new survey that should be of interest if you are currently using or actively considering MySQL or any of the NoSQL or NewSQL offerings
The aim of the survey is threefold:
- identify trends in database usage over time
- explore changing attitudes to MySQL following its acquisition by Oracle
- examine the competitive dynamic between MySQL and other database technologies, including NoSQL and NewSQL
There are just 12 questions to answer, spread over four pages, and the entire survey should take no longer than five minutes to complete.
All individual responses are of course confidential. The results will be published as part of a major research report due at the end of Q1. Thanks in advance for your participation.
The survey can be found at: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/MySQLNoSQLNewSQL
January 13th, 2012 — Data management
January 10th, 2012 — Data management
Oracle OEMs Cloudera. The future of Apache CouchDB. And more.
An occasional series of data-related news, views and links posts on Too Much Information. You can also follow the series @thedataday.
* Oracle announced the general availability of Big Data Appliance, and an OEM agreement with Cloudera for CDH and Cloudera Manager.
* The Future of Apache CouchDB Cloudant confirms intention to integrate the core capabilities of BigCouch into Apache CouchDB.
* Reinforcing Couchbase’s Commitment to Open Source and CouchDB Couchbase CEO Bob Wiederhold attempts to clear up any confusion.
* Hortonworks Appoints Shaun Connolly to Vice President of Corporate Strategy Former vice president of product strategy at VMware.
* Splunk even more data with 4.3 Introducing the latest Splunk release.
* Announcement of Percona XtraDB Cluster (alpha release) Based on Galera.
* Bringing Value of Big Data to Business: SAP’s Integrated Strategy Forbes interview with with Sanjay Poonen, President and corporate officer of SAP Global Solutions.
* New Release of Oracle Database Firewall Extends Support to MySQL and Enhances Reporting Capabilities Self-explanatory.
* Big data and the disruption curve “Many efforts are being funded by business units and not the IT department and money is increasingly being diverted from large enterprise vendors.”
* Get your SQL Server database ready for SQL Azure Microsoft “codename” SQL Azure Compatibility Assessment.
* An update on Apache Hadoop 1.0 Cloudera’s Charles Zedlewski helpfully explains Apache Hadoop branch numbering.
* Xeround and the CAP Theorem So where does Xeround fit in the CAP Theorem?
* Can Yahoo’s new CEO Thompson harness big data, analytics? Larry Dignan thinks Scott Thompson might just be the right guy for the job.
* US Companies Face Big Hurdles in ‘Big Data’ Use “21% of respondents were unsure how to best define Big Data”
* Schedule Your Agenda for 2012 NoSQL Events Alex Popescu updates his list of the year’s key NoSQL events.
* DataStax take Apache Cassandra Mainstream in 2011; Poised for Growth and Innovation in 2012 The usual momentum round-up from DataStax.
* Objectivity claimed significant growth in adoption of its graph database, InfiniteGraph and flagship object database, Objectivity/DB.
* Cloudera Connector for Teradata 1.0.0 Self-explanatory.
* For 451 Research clients
# SAS delivers in-memory analytics for Teradata and Greenplum Market Development report
# With $84m in funding, Opera sets out predictive-analytics plans Market Development report
* Google News Search outlier of the day: First Dagger Fencing Competition in the World Scheduled for January 14, 2012
And that’s the Data Day, today.
January 6th, 2012 — Data management
As I mentioned earlier this week, a major research focus for Q1 is the MySQL ecosystem, the positives and negatives of Oracle’s MySQL strategy, and the competitive overlap between MySQL, NoSQL and NewSQL.
It is impossible to think about this without reconsidering the commitments made by Oracle to customers, developers and users of MySQL in late December 2009, which played a significant part in satisfying European Commission concerns about Oracle’s acquisition of Sun.
While the commitments were both welcomed and derided when they were announced, it is worth considering today whether those commitments have been as significant in practice as they appeared to be two years ago.
For example, Oracle’s commitment to and investment in InnoDB – while positive for MySQL users – has arguably diminished the relevance of some of the storage engine-related commitments.
We will be coming to our own conclusions based on our research over the coming weeks, but I am interested in any feedback from MySQL customers, developers and users about how well Oracle has kept to its commitments and their significance in hindsight.
You can find a full list of the commitments here but the edited highlights are below:
1. Continued Availability of Storage Engine APIs.
2. Non-assertion of copyright and no requirement for a commercial license related to implementing the storage engine APIs .
3. Extension of any existing commercial storage engine licenses until December 10, 2014.
4. Commitment to continue licensing MySQL using the GNU GPL.
5. Customers would not be required to purchase support services from Oracle as a condition of obtaining a commercial license to MySQL.
6. Increase spending on MySQL research and development.
7. Commitment to create and fund a customer advisory board.
8. Commitment to create and fund a MySQL Storage Engine Vendor Advisory Board.
9. Commitment to retain the free MySQL Reference Manual.
10. Retention of annual or multi-year subscription renewals for end-users and embedded customers.
October 3rd, 2011 — Data management
We have previously speculated at The 451 Group about Oracle’s potential to respond to the growing adoption of NoSQL databases, noting that the company had a number of options at its disposal, including Berkeley DB and projects like HandlerSocket.
While some may wonder about the potential impact of Oracle NoSQL (based indeed on Berkeley DB) on the existing NoSQL vendors, I believe the launch says something very significant about NoSQL itself: specifically that its adoption is driven by more than the nature of the query language.
To get a sense of why Oracle NoSQL is significant, think about the way Oracle has traditionally responded to alternative approaches that threaten the relational model and its dominance thereof. Oracle’s approach has traditionally been to subsume the alternative approach, at least in part, into Oracle Database, nullifying the competitive threat.
Oracle CEO Larry Ellison explained the approach himself on a recent call with investors:
“We think that data should be integrated with a single database technology. That’s always been our strategy for Oracle. And it started as a relational database then we added objects, then we added text and then we’ve added a variety of other things like video and audio to the Oracle Database. We think that should be unified and that’s how we’re approaching the problem.”
As we recently covered (451 clients only), Oracle is in the process of replicating this strategy with MySQL, adding support for the ability to directly access MySQL’s InnoDB and MySQL’s Cluster’s NDB storage engines using the memcached API.
This ability to perform non-SQL querying of the database is part of the agility benefit of NoSQL, and if the term NoSQL were to be taken literally would perhaps be enough to discourage would-be NoSQL adopters from turning away from MySQL.
As our NoSQL, NewSQL and Beyond report highlighted, however, agility is just one of six key trends we see driving adoption of NoSQL databases. Scalability, performance, relaxed consistency, intricacy and necessity will not be solved by the ability to query MySQL or MySQL Cluster using the memcached API.
The launch of Oracle NoSQL is therefore a clear indication that there are trends at work here that cannot be solved by adding non-SQL querying to existing relational databases.
There is another significant factor here, which is the fact that Oracle has chose to name the product NoSQL. In one simple naming move the company has effectively disarmed the NoSQL ‘movement’.
We have previously noted that existing NoSQL vendors were turning away from the term in favor of emphasizing their individual strengths. How many of them are going to want to self-identify with an Oracle product? I’m not convinced any of them believe the brand is worth fighting for.
July 26th, 2011 — Data management, Uncategorized
Recently there have been a spate of postings regarding job trends for distributed data management technologies including Hadoop and the various NoSQL databases.
One thing you rarely see on these job trends charts is comparison with an incumbent technology, for context. There’s a reason for that, as this comparison of database-related jobs from Indeed.com illustrates:
Although there has been a recent increase in job postings related to Hadoop and MongoDB, both are dwarfed, in absolute terms, by the number of job postings involving SQL Server and MySQL.
So why all the fuss about Hadoop and NoSQL, from a corporate perspective? This chart, showing the relative growth for the same data management technologies, says it all:
July 11th, 2011 — Data management
It has been fascinating to watch how the industry has responded to ‘NewSQL’ since we published our first report using the term.
From day one the term has taken on a life of its own as the vendors such as ScaleBase, VoltDB, NimbusDB and Xeround have picked it up and run with it , while the likes of Marten Mickos and Michael Stonebraker have also adopted the term.
The reaction hasn’t been all positive, of course, although much of the criticism has been of the “are you kidding?” or “this is getting silly” variety rather than constructive debate about either the term or the associated technologies.
Another popular response is along the lines of “does this mean the end of NoSQL?”. I think it is important to address this question because it depends on a common misunderstanding about technology: that in order for the latest technology to succeed it is necessary for the technology that immediately preceded it to fail.
While our report into NoSQL, NewSQL and Beyond identified common drivers for interest in NoSQL and NewSQL databases, as well as data caching/grid technologies, in truth there is a significant difference between the requirements for databases that provide relaxed consistency and/or schema dependency and those that retain the ACID properties of transactional database systems.
Although there will be isolated examples, it is going to be rare, therefore, that any potential adopter would be directly comparing NoSQL and NewSQL technologies unless they are still at the stage trying to figure out the level of consistency required for an individual application.
The other option they would have is to use an existing SQL database, particularly Oracle’s MySQL, which provides the middle ground that overlaps both NoSQL and NewSQL. A significant number of the NoSQL deployments we have identified have migrated from MySQL, while existing MySQL deployments (although probably not the same ones) are also targets for the numerous NewSQL vendors.
VoltDB is a primary example, as last’s week’s GigaOm article covering CTO Michael Stonebraker’s view on Facebook’s MySQL ‘fate worse than death’ illustrated.
Much debate (125 comments at last count) has followed Stonebraker’s assertion that Facebook would be better off migrating to a NewSQL offering like VoltDB, most of which has not supported his view.
There’s a good reason for that. There is a good argument to be made that if you were trying to create Facebook from scratch today you probably wouldn’t choose the shard management overhead involved in MySQL. In that regard, Stonebraker has a point.
However, the fact is that MySQL was pretty much the only logical choice when Facebook began and its commitment to MySQL has grown over the years. The company is now probably one of the world’s experts in scaling and managing MySQL – to the extent that Facebook engineer Domas Mituzas argues that the operational overhead in handling sharding and availability of MySQL has become a constant cost.
Under those circumstances it would take something significant for a company like Facebook to even consider migrating to a MySQL alternative. Database migration projects are costly and complex and extremely rare – even at non-Facebook scale.
And it is not as if the company hasn’t experimented with other database technologies – having created Apache Cassandra and adopted Apache HBase for its Messages update.
This is exactly the polyglot persistence strategy we are seeing from NoSQL and NewSQL adopters: retaining MySQL (or another SQL database) where is makes sense to do so, while adding NoSQL and perhaps NewSQL for new projects and applications for which it is appropriate.
One other point to note, however, is that adopting a NewSQL technology might not require migrating away from MySQL. While the NewSQL category includes new database products such as VoltDB, it also includes alternative MySQL storage engines and database load balancing and clustering products such as ScaleBase and ScalArc, which are specifically designed to improve the scalability of MySQL (with other SQL databases to come) in order to avoid migration to an alternative database.
Adoption of these technologies does not require the complete abandonment of ‘standard MySQL’ any more than the adoption of NoSQL for non-ACID application requirements does, and it certainly doesn’t require the abandonment of NoSQL.
Subscribe via RSS