Part 3: A Quick Follow-on on Parallel Databases

In the thread I’m now working on (Part 1, Part 2) I’ve talked about Exadata and a criteria for evaluating split architectures. It is worth quickly talking about homogeneous systems with no split like Teradata or Greenplum or HANA… systems with no separate query-capable top end.

Every parallel shared-nothing DBMS has big pipes to move data between nodes… and they have all of the advanced intelligence to reduce the amount of data moved both between nodes within a query.

So if we compare Exadata to a split system with an RDBMS and Hadoop it fairs very well. But if we compare Exadata to Teradata or Greenplum or HANA… then the bottlenecks in Exadata look more severe. Exadata may tie, or occasionally win, in a POC against these homogenous competitors when the queries fit their architectural sweet spot. But if any queries are included that expose the bottlenecks or the limitations in query push-down… Exadata’s weak split architecture shows.

Next: Part 4

One thought on “Part 3: A Quick Follow-on on Parallel Databases

  1. Pingback: Part 4: How Hadooped is Teradata? | Database Fog Blog

Comments are closed.