NewSQL Vs. SQL on Hadoop
NoSQL, NewSQL, SQL on Hadoop – SQL seems to be everywhere these days. The data management landscape is complex and moving very fast. Since real-time analytics is used by both the NewSQL and SQL on Hadoop communities, let’s dig in and see the differences.
SQL Is in Vogue
SQL is back in vogue – as customers use proprietary NoSQL interfaces and begin to understand the tradeoffs in production environments, they’re coming to appreciate the ease of SQL, and the ACID guarantees that come with it. In operational databases, data warehousing and everything in between, vendors are now implementing SQL. CQL for Cassandra, SQL on Hadoop and the recent SumAll move to use a SQL layer on top of MongoDB to get better analytics are all part of this shift in the industry. Let’s explore some of the latest offerings…
SQL on Hadoop: Interactive Data Warehousing
Enterprises want to run their analyses on petabytes of data, but they want the simplicity of SQL too. Hadoop is powerful, but too slow for many tasks – customers are used to fast queries and interactive usage by the data scientist rather than “start the batch job and go get lunch” model of Hadoop. Here, real-time analytics refers to the fact that the query comes back in a few seconds – keeping the user engaged, but the data the query is running on might be a day old.
Cloudera Impala, Apache Drill (MapR), Presto (Facebook), Stinger initiative and Tez (Hortonworks) are all aimed at running SQL queries faster than Hive, many with similarities to Dremel. Shark from UC Berkeley adds in-memory processing. Pivotal HAWQ is a port of the Hortonworks MPP engine to HDFS. With columnar storage (e.g. Parquet) and fast SQL processing, these products are aimed at closing the gap with data warehouses. Cloudera recently wrote a blog to emphasize this, titled, “Impala Performance Update: Now Reaching DBMS-Class Speed”.
There has been talk to bringing SQL transactions to Hadoop, but these solutions are years away and it’s not clear whether they’ll have any advantage over the existing solutions.
NewSQL: Analytics on Fast Moving Transactions
However, there are more pieces to the puzzle. Some of the newest data lives in the data warehouse – e.g. logs can be pushed directly in Hadoop. However, a lot of valuable data lives in the transactional database. This is the database that companies in e-commerce, travel and various other sectors run their primary businesses on. Here, ACID guarantees rule and many workloads might be update-heavy. This includes data about customers, orders in e-commerce, or metadata about files in a cloud storage service and is where NewSQL comes into the picture.
NewSQL databases – ClustrixDB, Google F1, VoltDB and MemSQL all allow you to have fast and scalable transactions – and we’re in the millisecond range here. They are all distributed and allow you to scale-out in the cloud by adding more servers. Google runs AdWords on F1, its proprietary NewSQL database that is not available outside the company. ClustrixDB has focused on real-time analytics with multi-version concurrency control and massively parallel processing – the core technology allowing real-time analytics on the transactional database at the same time.
MemSQL and VoltDB are also beefing up their analytics capabilities; however, they are very limited, and it will take years for them to catch up. For example, MemSQL requires you to build your schema taking into account the join queries you later want to run, and joining two distributed tables does not quite work. VoltDB started by rejecting MVCC with a view that only transactions will happen on it and all analytics will be moved to a warehouse. Now they are adding analytics functionality, but performance is still a question.
These systems have the latest, most valuable and fastest moving data. Running analytics on this data can give users insights in real-time and on data that has not made it into the Hadoop warehouse yet. E-Commerce companies want to try offering different deals, analyze the results and provide the ones that get the most uptakes – right in the middle of a traffic spike on Cyber Monday. There is no running of batch jobs here – this is the holy grail of data processing.
So What to Choose…
These technologies are quite complementary.**SQL on Hadoop technologies are maturing fast. It usually takes about 5 years to get a SQL-based database up to acceptable maturity. They are certainly good for data warehousing on Hadoop, making it faster and providing higher developer productivity. ClustrixDB on the other hand has been in production now for 5 years with customers running more than a trillion transactions with over five 9s of availability.
However, in this noise, companies need to ensure they are getting insights from their most valuable data in real-time to get a competitive edge. For this, a NewSQL database is the right tool.