Feeds

Time to reject traditional database techniques?

'Big' data and the BI challenge

Providing a secure and efficient Helpdesk

Specialized databases such as those built by Google and Yahoo, data warehouse software such as Vertica and Monet and innovative DBMS such as H-Store were all claimed to outperform relational DBMS products. Even in Online Transaction Processing (OLTP) - the traditional strong point of classic relational databases - H-Store was claimed to perform better.

At the heart of the argument against relational DBMS are, firstly, what are seen as the limitations of the old relational model and SQL and, secondly, how they may either be upgraded or replaced. Some argue in favor of new approaches such as the MapReduce technology used by Google to power its massive search engine operations. Others hold true to the transactional integrity and ACID properties built into traditional DBMS such as IBMS DB2, Oracle, and Microsoft's SQL Server.

Even the DBMS gurus can be confusing. While advocating new approaches to DBMS in the 2007 VLDB paper, Stonebraker provoked a storm in January when he co-authored a critique of Google's MapReduce that was widely acknowledged as a "new approach".

One of Stonebraker's criticisms of MapReduce was the lack of SQL-like tools. The omission was remedied in August by newcomers Aster Data and Greenplum - so it appears that there's still a need for at least some bits of relational DBMS technology.

MapReduce blasphemy

But even MapReduce has limitations. Recent analysis carried out by eBay revealed some resource usage problems.

The future of DBMS technology rests on a combination of tried-and-tested techniques from the past and innovations to cope with large data volumes and more demanding users.

The recent announcements from Oracle and Microsoft embody some of the changes that point towards some sort of consensus on future development of DBMS. Oracle's Exadata and Microsoft's Kilimanjaro take on ideas from more modern approaches to DBMS and fold them into the tradition.

Oracle and Microsoft's new plans also include in-memory processing, massively-parallel processing, and the column-storage approach used in data warehouse products such as Sybase IQ and, more recently, Vertica, and Google's BigTable

SQL and the relational model appear, it seems, are positioned to survive intact. ®

Internet Security Threat Report 2014

More from The Register

next story
UNIX greybeards threaten Debian fork over systemd plan
'Veteran Unix Admins' fear desktop emphasis is betraying open source
Netscape Navigator - the browser that started it all - turns 20
It was 20 years ago today, Marc Andreeesen taught the band to play
Redmond top man Satya Nadella: 'Microsoft LOVES Linux'
Open-source 'love' fairly runneth over at cloud event
Chrome 38's new HTML tag support makes fatties FIT and SKINNIER
First browser to protect networks' bandwith using official spec
Admins! Never mind POODLE, there're NEW OpenSSL bugs to splat
Four new patches for open-source crypto libraries
Torvalds CONFESSES: 'I'm pretty good at alienating devs'
Admits to 'a metric ****load' of mistakes during work with Linux collaborators
prev story

Whitepapers

Forging a new future with identity relationship management
Learn about ForgeRock's next generation IRM platform and how it is designed to empower CEOS's and enterprises to engage with consumers.
Why and how to choose the right cloud vendor
The benefits of cloud-based storage in your processes. Eliminate onsite, disk-based backup and archiving in favor of cloud-based data protection.
Three 1TB solid state scorchers up for grabs
Big SSDs can be expensive but think big and think free because you could be the lucky winner of one of three 1TB Samsung SSD 840 EVO drives that we’re giving away worth over £300 apiece.
Reg Reader Research: SaaS based Email and Office Productivity Tools
Read this Reg reader report which provides advice and guidance for SMBs towards the use of SaaS based email and Office productivity tools.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.