#hadapt

[reporthive-blog]

Global Hadoop And Big Data Analytics Market Size by Type and Application 2012-2017 This report studies the global Hadoop And Big Data Analytics market, analyzes and researches the Hadoop And Big Data Analytics development status and forecast in United States, EU, Japan, China, India and Southeast Asia.

[nosql]

Daniel Abadi in an email to Curt Monash analyzing a the Microsoft Polybase paper1:

The basic difference between Polybase and Hadapt is the following. With Polybase, the basic interface to the user is the MPP database software (and DBMS storage) that Microsoft is selling. Hadoop is viewed as a secondary source of data — if you have a dataset stored inside Hadoop instead of the database system for whatever reason, then the database system can access that Hadoop data on the fly and include that data in query processing alongside data that is already stored inside the database system. However, the user must be aware that she might want to query the data in Hadoop in advance — she must register this Hadoop data to the MPP database through an external table definition (and ideally statistics should be generated in advance to help the optimizer). Furthermore, the Hadoop data must be structured, since the external table definition requires this (so you can’t really access arbitrary unstructured data in Hadoop). The same is true for SQL-H and Hawq — they all can access data in Hadoop (in particular data stored in HDFS), but there needs to be some sort of structured schema defined in order for the database to understand how to access it via SQL. So, bottom line, Polybase/SQL-H/Hawq let you dynamically get at data in Hadoop/HDFS that could theoretically have been stored in the DBMS all along, but for some reason is being stored in Hadoop instead of the DBMS.

It’s a long paragraph, but the difference Daniel Abadi is emphasizing is critical: “Hadoop/HDFS data that could theoretically have been stored in DBMS all along”.

According to Microsoft GraySystemsLab page on Polybase: ↩

[…] the goal of the Polybase project is to allow SQL Server PDW users to execute queries against data stored in Hadoop, specifically the Hadoop distributed file system (HDFS). Polybase is agnostic on both the type of the Hadoop cluster (Linux or Windows) and whether it is a separate cluster or whether the Hadoop nodes are co-located with the nodes of the PDW appliance.

And here’re my (very) brief thoughts about Polybase when I first learned about it.

Original title and link: Main difference between Hadapt and Microsoft Polybase, HAWQ, SQL-H (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

[nosql]

This post by Daniel Abadi dates from July 2012, but it’s so right that I wonder why I didn’t link to it before:

Many people don’t realize that Hadoop and parallel relational databases have an extremely similar design. Both are capable of storing large data sets by breaking the data into pieces and storing them on multiple independent (“shared-nothing”) machines in a cluster. Both scale processing over these large data sets by parallelizing the processing of the data over these independent machines. Both do as much independent processing as possible across individual partitions of data, in order to reduce the amount of data that must be exchanged between machines. Both store data redundantly in order to increase fault tolerance.  The algorithms for scaling operations like selecting data, projecting data, grouping data, aggregating data, sorting data, and even joining data are the same. If you squint, the basic data processing technology of Hadoop and parallel database systems are identical.

There is absolutely no technical reason why there needs to be two separate systems doing the exact same type of parallel processing.

Someone trying to defend his position could counter this perspective by mentioning that Daniel Abadi’s product Hadapt is competing on this exact segment of the market. But by doing so, that someone would just prove how right Abadi is.

Original title and link: Why Database-To-Hadoop Connectors Are Fundamentally Flawed and Entirely Unnecessary (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

[nosql]

Monte Zweben interviewed by Gery Menegaz for ZDNet:

“The NoSQL community threw out the baby with the bath water. They got it right with flexible schemas and distributed, auto-sharded architectures, but it was a mistake to discard SQL,”

After reading the above, I was ready to file this together with The Time for NoSQL Standards Is Now; which by the way dates from July 2012.

Then it is only the final paragraph that clarifies what Monte Zweben is talking about: a SQL engine for Hadoop. I don’t know if the order makes any difference, but before taking about thrown babies:

this is not SQL for NoSQL databases

there’s already Hive for SQL on Hadoop

there’s already Spire from Drawn to Scale for ANSI SQL on Hadoop

there’s already Hadapt for SQL and Hadoop

Original title and link: The NoSQL Community Threw Out the Baby With the Bath Water (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

[nosql]

Big Data Investment Network Map

Very interesting visualization of some of the companies in the Big Data market connected through their venture capital and investment firms by Benedikt Koehler and Joerg Blumtritt over Beautiful Data blog:

Click to see larger size

There’s only one company I couldn’t find on this map: Hortonworks.

Original title and link: Big Data Investment Network Map (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

[nosql]

12 Hadoop Vendors to Watch in 2012

My list of 8 most interesting companies for the future of Hadoop didn’t try to include anyone having a product with the Hadoop word in it. But the list from InformationWeek does. To save you 15 clicks, here’s their list:

Amazon Elastic MapReduce

Cloudera

Datameer

EMC (with EMC Greenplum Unified Analytics Platform and EMC Data Computing Appliance)

Hadapt

Hortonworks

IBM (InfoSphere BigInsights)

Informatica (for HParser)

Karmasphere

MapR

Microsoft

Oracle

Original title and link: 12 Hadoop Vendors to Watch in 2012 (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

[nosql]

LinkedIn’s Adam Silberstein and Daniel Tunkelang provide a fantastic summary of a presentation I wish I could attend: Daniel Abadi’s “Improving Hadoop Performance by (up to) 1000x”.

Overly simplified, Daniel Abadi’s proposal is to create an analytical platform by using the best of two worlds: Hadoop and row-based or column-based relational database storage and query engines.

Hadapt, the company founded by Daniel Abadi, is in my list of the 8 most interesting companies for Hadoop’s future because I think that an interesting product can be built by combining the long optimized and tested storage and query engines of relational databases with Hadoop’s fault tolerance, scalability, and power, topped with a resource management layer.

Original title and link: Improving Hadoop Performance by (Up To) 1000x (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)

[nosql]

8 Most Interesting Companies for Hadoop's Future

Filtering and augmenting a Q&A on Quora:

Cloudera: Hadoop distribution, Cloudera Enterprise, Services, Training

Hortonworks: Apache Hadoop major contributions, Services, Training

MapR: Hadoop distribution, Services, Training

HPCC Systems: massive parallel-processing computing platform

HStreaming: real-time data processing and analytics capabilities on top of Hadoop

DataStax: DataStax Enterprise, Apache Cassandra based platform accepting real-time input from online applications, while offering analytic operations, powered by Hadoop

Zettaset: Enterprise Data Analytics Suite built on Hadoop

Hadapt: analytic platform based on Apache Hadoop and relational DBMS technology

I’ve left aside names like IBM, EMC, Informatica, which are doing a lot of integration work.

Original title and link: 8 Most Interesting Companies for Hadoop's Future (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)