>>When Oracle acquired my SQL via the Sun acquisition, nobody really thought the company would put much effort into the platform preferring to focus all the wood behind its leading Oracle database, Arrow pun intended. But two years ago, Oracle surprised many folks by announcing my SQL Heatwave a new database as a service with a massively parallel hybrid Columbia in Mary Mary architecture that brings together transactional and analytic data in a single platform. Welcome to our latest database, power panel on the cube. My name is Dave Ante, and today we're gonna discuss Oracle's MySQL Heat Wave with a who's who of cloud database industry analysts. Holgar Mueller is with Constellation Research. Mark Stammer is the Dragon Slayer and Wikibon contributor. And Ron Westfall is with Fu Chim Research. Gentlemen, welcome back to the Cube. Always a pleasure to have you on. Thanks for having us. Great to be here. >>So we've had a number of of deep dive interviews on the Cube with Nip and Aggarwal. You guys know him? He's a senior vice president of MySQL, Heatwave Development at Oracle. I think you just saw him at Oracle Cloud World and he's come on to describe this is gonna, I'll call it a shock and awe feature additions to to heatwave. You know, the company's clearly putting r and d into the platform and I think at at cloud world we saw like the fifth major release since 2020 when they first announced MySQL heat wave. So just listing a few, they, they got, they taken, brought in analytics machine learning, they got autopilot for machine learning, which is automation onto the basic o l TP functionality of the database. And it's been interesting to watch Oracle's converge database strategy. We've contrasted that amongst ourselves. Love to get your thoughts on Amazon's get the right tool for the right job approach. >>Are they gonna have to change that? You know, Amazon's got the specialized databases, it's just, you know, the both companies are doing well. It just shows there are a lot of ways to, to skin a cat cuz you see some traction in the market in, in both approaches. So today we're gonna focus on the latest heat wave announcements and we're gonna talk about multi-cloud with a native MySQL heat wave implementation, which is available on aws MySQL heat wave for Azure via the Oracle Microsoft interconnect. This kind of cool hybrid action that they got going. Sometimes we call it super cloud. And then we're gonna dive into my SQL Heatwave Lake house, which allows users to process and query data across MyQ databases as heatwave databases, as well as object stores. So, and then we've got, heatwave has been announced on AWS and, and, and Azure, they're available now and Lake House I believe is in beta and I think it's coming out the second half of next year. So again, all of our guests are fresh off of Oracle Cloud world in Las Vegas. So they got the latest scoop. Guys, I'm done talking. Let's get into it. Mark, maybe you could start us off, what's your opinion of my SQL Heatwaves competitive position? When you think about what AWS is doing, you know, Google is, you know, we heard Google Cloud next recently, we heard about all their data innovations. You got, obviously Azure's got a big portfolio, snowflakes doing well in the market. What's your take? >>Well, first let's look at it from the point of view that AWS is the market leader in cloud and cloud services. They own somewhere between 30 to 50% depending on who you read of the market. And then you have Azure as number two and after that it falls off. There's gcp, Google Cloud platform, which is further way down the list and then Oracle and IBM and Alibaba. So when you look at AWS and you and Azure saying, hey, these are the market leaders in the cloud, then you start looking at it and saying, if I am going to provide a service that competes with the service they have, if I can make it available in their cloud, it means that I can be more competitive. And if I'm compelling and compelling means at least twice the performance or functionality or both at half the price, I should be able to gain market share. >>And that's what Oracle's done. They've taken a superior product in my SQL heat wave, which is faster, lower cost does more for a lot less at the end of the day and they make it available to the users of those clouds. You avoid this little thing called egress fees, you avoid the issue of having to migrate from one cloud to another and suddenly you have a very compelling offer. So I look at what Oracle's doing with MyQ and it feels like, I'm gonna use a word term, a flanking maneuver to their competition. They're offering a better service on their platforms. >>All right, so thank you for that. Holger, we've seen this sort of cadence, I sort of referenced it up front a little bit and they sat on MySQL for a decade, then all of a sudden we see this rush of announcements. Why did it take so long? And and more importantly is Oracle, are they developing the right features that cloud database customers are looking for in your view? >>Yeah, great question, but first of all, in your interview you said it's the edit analytics, right? Analytics is kind of like a marketing buzzword. Reports can be analytics, right? The interesting thing, which they did, the first thing they, they, they crossed the chasm between OTP and all up, right? In the same database, right? So major engineering feed very much what customers want and it's all about creating Bellevue for customers, which, which I think is the part why they go into the multi-cloud and why they add these capabilities. And they certainly with the AI capabilities, it's kind of like getting it into an autonomous field, self-driving field now with the lake cost capabilities and meeting customers where they are, like Mark has talked about the e risk costs in the cloud. So that that's a significant advantage, creating value for customers and that's what at the end of the day matters. >>And I believe strongly that long term it's gonna be ones who create better value for customers who will get more of their money From that perspective, why then take them so long? I think it's a great question. I think largely he mentioned the gentleman Nial, it's largely to who leads a product. I used to build products too, so maybe I'm a little fooling myself here, but that made the difference in my view, right? So since he's been charged, he's been building things faster than the rest of the competition, than my SQL space, which in hindsight we thought was a hot and smoking innovation phase. It kind of like was a little self complacent when it comes to the traditional borders of where, where people think, where things are separated between OTP and ola or as an example of adjacent support, right? Structured documents, whereas unstructured documents or databases and all of that has been collapsed and brought together for building a more powerful database for customers. >>So I mean it's certainly, you know, when, when Oracle talks about the competitors, you know, the competitors are in the, I always say they're, if the Oracle talks about you and knows you're doing well, so they talk a lot about aws, talk a little bit about Snowflake, you know, sort of Google, they have partnerships with Azure, but, but in, so I'm presuming that the response in MySQL heatwave was really in, in response to what they were seeing from those big competitors. But then you had Maria DB coming out, you know, the day that that Oracle acquired Sun and, and launching and going after the MySQL base. So it's, I'm, I'm interested and we'll talk about this later and what you guys think AWS and Google and Azure and Snowflake and how they're gonna respond. But, but before I do that, Ron, I want to ask you, you, you, you can get, you know, pretty technical and you've probably seen the benchmarks. >>I know you have Oracle makes a big deal out of it, publishes its benchmarks, makes some transparent on on GI GitHub. Larry Ellison talked about this in his keynote at Cloud World. What are the benchmarks show in general? I mean, when you, when you're new to the market, you gotta have a story like Mark was saying, you gotta be two x you know, the performance at half the cost or you better be or you're not gonna get any market share. So, and, and you know, oftentimes companies don't publish market benchmarks when they're leading. They do it when they, they need to gain share. So what do you make of the benchmarks? Have their, any results that were surprising to you? Have, you know, they been challenged by the competitors. Is it just a bunch of kind of desperate bench marketing to make some noise in the market or you know, are they real? What's your view? >>Well, from my perspective, I think they have the validity. And to your point, I believe that when it comes to competitor responses, that has not really happened. Nobody has like pulled down the information that's on GitHub and said, Oh, here are our price performance results. And they counter oracles. In fact, I think part of the reason why that hasn't happened is that there's the risk if Oracle's coming out and saying, Hey, we can deliver 17 times better query performance using our capabilities versus say, Snowflake when it comes to, you know, the Lakehouse platform and Snowflake turns around and says it's actually only 15 times better during performance, that's not exactly an effective maneuver. And so I think this is really to oracle's credit and I think it's refreshing because these differentiators are significant. We're not talking, you know, like 1.2% differences. We're talking 17 fold differences, we're talking six fold differences depending on, you know, where the spotlight is being shined and so forth. >>And so I think this is actually something that is actually too good to believe initially at first blush. If I'm a cloud database decision maker, I really have to prioritize this. I really would know, pay a lot more attention to this. And that's why I posed the question to Oracle and others like, okay, if these differentiators are so significant, why isn't the needle moving a bit more? And it's for, you know, some of the usual reasons. One is really deep discounting coming from, you know, the other players that's really kind of, you know, marketing 1 0 1, this is something you need to do when there's a real competitive threat to keep, you know, a customer in your own customer base. Plus there is the usual fear and uncertainty about moving from one platform to another. But I think, you know, the traction, the momentum is, is shifting an Oracle's favor. I think we saw that in the Q1 efforts, for example, where Oracle cloud grew 44% and that it generated, you know, 4.8 billion and revenue if I recall correctly. And so, so all these are demonstrating that's Oracle is making, I think many of the right moves, publishing these figures for anybody to look at from their own perspective is something that is, I think, good for the market and I think it's just gonna continue to pay dividends for Oracle down the horizon as you know, competition intens plots. So if I were in, >>Dave, can I, Dave, can I interject something and, and what Ron just said there? Yeah, please go ahead. A couple things here, one discounting, which is a common practice when you have a real threat, as Ron pointed out, isn't going to help much in this situation simply because you can't discount to the point where you improve your performance and the performance is a huge differentiator. You may be able to get your price down, but the problem that most of them have is they don't have an integrated product service. They don't have an integrated O L T P O L A P M L N data lake. Even if you cut out two of them, they don't have any of them integrated. They have multiple services that are required separate integration and that can't be overcome with discounting. And the, they, you have to pay for each one of these. And oh, by the way, as you grow, the discounts go away. So that's a, it's a minor important detail. >>So, so that's a TCO question mark, right? And I know you look at this a lot, if I had that kind of price performance advantage, I would be pounding tco, especially if I need two separate databases to do the job. That one can do, that's gonna be, the TCO numbers are gonna be off the chart or maybe down the chart, which you want. Have you looked at this and how does it compare with, you know, the big cloud guys, for example, >>I've looked at it in depth, in fact, I'm working on another TCO on this arena, but you can find it on Wiki bod in which I compared TCO for MySEQ Heat wave versus Aurora plus Redshift plus ML plus Blue. I've compared it against gcps services, Azure services, Snowflake with other services. And there's just no comparison. The, the TCO differences are huge. More importantly, thefor, the, the TCO per performance is huge. We're talking in some cases multiple orders of magnitude, but at least an order of magnitude difference. So discounting isn't gonna help you much at the end of the day, it's only going to lower your cost a little, but it doesn't improve the automation, it doesn't improve the performance, it doesn't improve the time to insight, it doesn't improve all those things that you want out of a database or multiple databases because you >>Can't discount yourself to a higher value proposition. >>So what about, I wonder ho if you could chime in on the developer angle. You, you followed that, that market. How do these innovations from heatwave, I think you used the term developer velocity. I've heard you used that before. Yeah, I mean, look, Oracle owns Java, okay, so it, it's, you know, most popular, you know, programming language in the world, blah, blah blah. But it does it have the, the minds and hearts of, of developers and does, where does heatwave fit into that equation? >>I think heatwave is gaining quickly mindshare on the developer side, right? It's not the traditional no sequel database which grew up, there's a traditional mistrust of oracles to developers to what was happening to open source when gets acquired. Like in the case of Oracle versus Java and where my sql, right? And, but we know it's not a good competitive strategy to, to bank on Oracle screwing up because it hasn't worked not on Java known my sequel, right? And for developers, it's, once you get to know a technology product and you can do more, it becomes kind of like a Swiss army knife and you can build more use case, you can build more powerful applications. That's super, super important because you don't have to get certified in multiple databases. You, you are fast at getting things done, you achieve fire, develop velocity, and the managers are happy because they don't have to license more things, send you to more trainings, have more risk of something not being delivered, right? >>So it's really the, we see the suite where this best of breed play happening here, which in general was happening before already with Oracle's flagship database. Whereas those Amazon as an example, right? And now the interesting thing is every step away Oracle was always a one database company that can be only one and they're now generally talking about heat web and that two database company with different market spaces, but same value proposition of integrating more things very, very quickly to have a universal database that I call, they call the converge database for all the needs of an enterprise to run certain application use cases. And that's what's attractive to developers. >>It's, it's ironic isn't it? I mean I, you know, the rumor was the TK Thomas Curian left Oracle cuz he wanted to put Oracle database on other clouds and other places. And maybe that was the rift. Maybe there was, I'm sure there was other things, but, but Oracle clearly is now trying to expand its Tam Ron with, with heatwave into aws, into Azure. How do you think Oracle's gonna do, you were at a cloud world, what was the sentiment from customers and the independent analyst? Is this just Oracle trying to screw with the competition, create a little diversion? Or is this, you know, serious business for Oracle? What do you think? >>No, I think it has lakes. I think it's definitely, again, attriting to Oracle's overall ability to differentiate not only my SQL heat wave, but its overall portfolio. And I think the fact that they do have the alliance with the Azure in place, that this is definitely demonstrating their commitment to meeting the multi-cloud needs of its customers as well as what we pointed to in terms of the fact that they're now offering, you know, MySQL capabilities within AWS natively and that it can now perform AWS's own offering. And I think this is all demonstrating that Oracle is, you know, not letting up, they're not resting on its laurels. That's clearly we are living in a multi-cloud world, so why not just make it more easy for customers to be able to use cloud databases according to their own specific, specific needs. And I think, you know, to holder's point, I think that definitely lines with being able to bring on more application developers to leverage these capabilities. >>I think one important announcement that's related to all this was the JSON relational duality capabilities where now it's a lot easier for application developers to use a language that they're very familiar with a JS O and not have to worry about going into relational databases to store their J S O N application coding. So this is, I think an example of the innovation that's enhancing the overall Oracle portfolio and certainly all the work with machine learning is definitely paying dividends as well. And as a result, I see Oracle continue to make these inroads that we pointed to. But I agree with Mark, you know, the short term discounting is just a stall tag. This is not denying the fact that Oracle is being able to not only deliver price performance differentiators that are dramatic, but also meeting a wide range of needs for customers out there that aren't just limited device performance consideration. >>Being able to support multi-cloud according to customer needs. Being able to reach out to the application developer community and address a very specific challenge that has plagued them for many years now. So bring it all together. Yeah, I see this as just enabling Oracles who ring true with customers. That the customers that were there were basically all of them, even though not all of them are going to be saying the same things, they're all basically saying positive feedback. And likewise, I think the analyst community is seeing this. It's always refreshing to be able to talk to customers directly and at Oracle cloud there was a litany of them and so this is just a difference maker as well as being able to talk to strategic partners. The nvidia, I think partnerships also testament to Oracle's ongoing ability to, you know, make the ecosystem more user friendly for the customers out there. >>Yeah, it's interesting when you get these all in one tools, you know, the Swiss Army knife, you expect that it's not able to be best of breed. That's the kind of surprising thing that I'm hearing about, about heatwave. I want to, I want to talk about Lake House because when I think of Lake House, I think data bricks, and to my knowledge data bricks hasn't been in the sites of Oracle yet. Maybe they're next, but, but Oracle claims that MySQL, heatwave, Lakehouse is a breakthrough in terms of capacity and performance. Mark, what are your thoughts on that? Can you double click on, on Lakehouse Oracle's claims for things like query performance and data loading? What does it mean for the market? Is Oracle really leading in, in the lake house competitive landscape? What are your thoughts? >>Well, but name in the game is what are the problems you're solving for the customer? More importantly, are those problems urgent or important? If they're urgent, customers wanna solve 'em. Now if they're important, they might get around to them. So you look at what they're doing with Lake House or previous to that machine learning or previous to that automation or previous to that O L A with O ltp and they're merging all this capability together. If you look at Snowflake or data bricks, they're tacking one problem. You look at MyQ heat wave, they're tacking multiple problems. So when you say, yeah, their queries are much better against the lake house in combination with other analytics in combination with O ltp and the fact that there are no ETLs. So you're getting all this done in real time. So it's, it's doing the query cross, cross everything in real time. >>You're solving multiple user and developer problems, you're increasing their ability to get insight faster, you're having shorter response times. So yeah, they really are solving urgent problems for customers. And by putting it where the customer lives, this is the brilliance of actually being multicloud. And I know I'm backing up here a second, but by making it work in AWS and Azure where people already live, where they already have applications, what they're saying is, we're bringing it to you. You don't have to come to us to get these, these benefits, this value overall, I think it's a brilliant strategy. I give Nip and Argo wallet a huge, huge kudos for what he's doing there. So yes, what they're doing with the lake house is going to put notice on data bricks and Snowflake and everyone else for that matter. Well >>Those are guys that whole ago you, you and I have talked about this. Those are, those are the guys that are doing sort of the best of breed. You know, they're really focused and they, you know, tend to do well at least out of the gate. Now you got Oracle's converged philosophy, obviously with Oracle database. We've seen that now it's kicking in gear with, with heatwave, you know, this whole thing of sweets versus best of breed. I mean the long term, you know, customers tend to migrate towards suite, but the new shiny toy tends to get the growth. How do you think this is gonna play out in cloud database? >>Well, it's the forever never ending story, right? And in software right suite, whereas best of breed and so far in the long run suites have always won, right? So, and sometimes they struggle again because the inherent problem of sweets is you build something larger, it has more complexity and that means your cycles to get everything working together to integrate the test that roll it out, certify whatever it is, takes you longer, right? And that's not the case. It's a fascinating part of what the effort around my SQL heat wave is that the team is out executing the previous best of breed data, bringing us something together. Now if they can maintain that pace, that's something to to, to be seen. But it, the strategy, like what Mark was saying, bring the software to the data is of course interesting and unique and totally an Oracle issue in the past, right? >>Yeah. But it had to be in your database on oci. And but at, that's an interesting part. The interesting thing on the Lake health side is, right, there's three key benefits of a lakehouse. The first one is better reporting analytics, bring more rich information together, like make the, the, the case for silicon angle, right? We want to see engagements for this video, we want to know what's happening. That's a mixed transactional video media use case, right? Typical Lakehouse use case. The next one is to build more rich applications, transactional applications which have video and these elements in there, which are the engaging one. And the third one, and that's where I'm a little critical and concerned, is it's really the base platform for artificial intelligence, right? To run deep learning to run things automatically because they have all the data in one place can create in one way. >>And that's where Oracle, I know that Ron talked about Invidia for a moment, but that's where Oracle doesn't have the strongest best story. Nonetheless, the two other main use cases of the lake house are very strong, very well only concern is four 50 terabyte sounds long. It's an arbitrary limitation. Yeah, sounds as big. So for the start, and it's the first word, they can make that bigger. You don't want your lake house to be limited and the terabyte sizes or any even petabyte size because you want to have the certainty. I can put everything in there that I think it might be relevant without knowing what questions to ask and query those questions. >>Yeah. And you know, in the early days of no schema on right, it just became a mess. But now technology has evolved to allow us to actually get more value out of that data. Data lake. Data swamp is, you know, not much more, more, more, more logical. But, and I want to get in, in a moment, I want to come back to how you think the competitors are gonna respond. Are they gonna have to sort of do a more of a converged approach? AWS in particular? But before I do, Ron, I want to ask you a question about autopilot because I heard Larry Ellison's keynote and he was talking about how, you know, most security issues are human errors with autonomy and autonomous database and things like autopilot. We take care of that. It's like autonomous vehicles, they're gonna be safer. And I went, well maybe, maybe someday. So Oracle really tries to emphasize this, that every time you see an announcement from Oracle, they talk about new, you know, autonomous capabilities. It, how legit is it? Do people care? What about, you know, what's new for heatwave Lakehouse? How much of a differentiator, Ron, do you really think autopilot is in this cloud database space? >>Yeah, I think it will definitely enhance the overall proposition. I don't think people are gonna buy, you know, lake house exclusively cause of autopilot capabilities, but when they look at the overall picture, I think it will be an added capability bonus to Oracle's benefit. And yeah, I think it's kind of one of these age old questions, how much do you automate and what is the bounce to strike? And I think we all understand with the automatic car, autonomous car analogy that there are limitations to being able to use that. However, I think it's a tool that basically every organization out there needs to at least have or at least evaluate because it goes to the point of it helps with ease of use, it helps make automation more balanced in terms of, you know, being able to test, all right, let's automate this process and see if it works well, then we can go on and switch on on autopilot for other processes. >>And then, you know, that allows, for example, the specialists to spend more time on business use cases versus, you know, manual maintenance of, of the cloud database and so forth. So I think that actually is a, a legitimate value proposition. I think it's just gonna be a case by case basis. Some organizations are gonna be more aggressive with putting automation throughout their processes throughout their organization. Others are gonna be more cautious. But it's gonna be, again, something that will help the overall Oracle proposition. And something that I think will be used with caution by many organizations, but other organizations are gonna like, hey, great, this is something that is really answering a real problem. And that is just easing the use of these databases, but also being able to better handle the automation capabilities and benefits that come with it without having, you know, a major screwup happened and the process of transitioning to more automated capabilities. >>Now, I didn't attend cloud world, it's just too many red eyes, you know, recently, so I passed. But one of the things I like to do at those events is talk to customers, you know, in the spirit of the truth, you know, they, you know, you'd have the hallway, you know, track and to talk to customers and they say, Hey, you know, here's the good, the bad and the ugly. So did you guys, did you talk to any customers my SQL Heatwave customers at, at cloud world? And and what did you learn? I don't know, Mark, did you, did you have any luck and, and having some, some private conversations? >>Yeah, I had quite a few private conversations. The one thing before I get to that, I want disagree with one point Ron made, I do believe there are customers out there buying the heat wave service, the MySEQ heat wave server service because of autopilot. Because autopilot is really revolutionary in many ways in the sense for the MySEQ developer in that it, it auto provisions, it auto parallel loads, IT auto data places it auto shape predictions. It can tell you what machine learning models are going to tell you, gonna give you your best results. And, and candidly, I've yet to meet a DBA who didn't wanna give up pedantic tasks that are pain in the kahoo, which they'd rather not do and if it's long as it was done right for them. So yes, I do think people are buying it because of autopilot and that's based on some of the conversations I had with customers at Oracle Cloud World. >>In fact, it was like, yeah, that's great, yeah, we get fantastic performance, but this really makes my life easier and I've yet to meet a DBA who didn't want to make their life easier. And it does. So yeah, I've talked to a few of them. They were excited. I asked them if they ran into any bugs, were there any difficulties in moving to it? And the answer was no. In both cases, it's interesting to note, my sequel is the most popular database on the planet. Well, some will argue that it's neck and neck with SQL Server, but if you add in Mariah DB and ProCon db, which are forks of MySQL, then yeah, by far and away it's the most popular. And as a result of that, everybody for the most part has typically a my sequel database somewhere in their organization. So this is a brilliant situation for anybody going after MyQ, but especially for heat wave. And the customers I talk to love it. I didn't find anybody complaining about it. And >>What about the migration? We talked about TCO earlier. Did your t does your TCO analysis include the migration cost or do you kind of conveniently leave that out or what? >>Well, when you look at migration costs, there are different kinds of migration costs. By the way, the worst job in the data center is the data migration manager. Forget it, no other job is as bad as that one. You get no attaboys for doing it. Right? And then when you screw up, oh boy. So in real terms, anything that can limit data migration is a good thing. And when you look at Data Lake, that limits data migration. So if you're already a MySEQ user, this is a pure MySQL as far as you're concerned. It's just a, a simple transition from one to the other. You may wanna make sure nothing broke and every you, all your tables are correct and your schema's, okay, but it's all the same. So it's a simple migration. So it's pretty much a non-event, right? When you migrate data from an O LTP to an O L A P, that's an ETL and that's gonna take time. >>But you don't have to do that with my SQL heat wave. So that's gone when you start talking about machine learning, again, you may have an etl, you may not, depending on the circumstances, but again, with my SQL heat wave, you don't, and you don't have duplicate storage, you don't have to copy it from one storage container to another to be able to be used in a different database, which by the way, ultimately adds much more cost than just the other service. So yeah, I looked at the migration and again, the users I talked to said it was a non-event. It was literally moving from one physical machine to another. If they had a new version of MySEQ running on something else and just wanted to migrate it over or just hook it up or just connect it to the data, it worked just fine. >>Okay, so every day it sounds like you guys feel, and we've certainly heard this, my colleague David Foyer, the semi-retired David Foyer was always very high on heatwave. So I think you knows got some real legitimacy here coming from a standing start, but I wanna talk about the competition, how they're likely to respond. I mean, if your AWS and you got heatwave is now in your cloud, so there's some good aspects of that. The database guys might not like that, but the infrastructure guys probably love it. Hey, more ways to sell, you know, EC two and graviton, but you're gonna, the database guys in AWS are gonna respond. They're gonna say, Hey, we got Redshift, we got aqua. What's your thoughts on, on not only how that's gonna resonate with customers, but I'm interested in what you guys think will a, I never say never about aws, you know, and are they gonna try to build, in your view a converged Oola and o LTP database? You know, Snowflake is taking an ecosystem approach. They've added in transactional capabilities to the portfolio so they're not standing still. What do you guys see in the competitive landscape in that regard going forward? Maybe Holger, you could start us off and anybody else who wants to can chime in, >>Happy to, you mentioned Snowflake last, we'll start there. I think Snowflake is imitating that strategy, right? That building out original data warehouse and the clouds tasking project to really proposition to have other data available there because AI is relevant for everybody. Ultimately people keep data in the cloud for ultimately running ai. So you see the same suite kind of like level strategy, it's gonna be a little harder because of the original positioning. How much would people know that you're doing other stuff? And I just, as a former developer manager of developers, I just don't see the speed at the moment happening at Snowflake to become really competitive to Oracle. On the flip side, putting my Oracle hat on for a moment back to you, Mark and Iran, right? What could Oracle still add? Because the, the big big things, right? The traditional chasms in the database world, they have built everything, right? >>So I, I really scratched my hat and gave Nipon a hard time at Cloud world say like, what could you be building? Destiny was very conservative. Let's get the Lakehouse thing done, it's gonna spring next year, right? And the AWS is really hard because AWS value proposition is these small innovation teams, right? That they build two pizza teams, which can be fit by two pizzas, not large teams, right? And you need suites to large teams to build these suites with lots of functionalities to make sure they work together. They're consistent, they have the same UX on the administration side, they can consume the same way, they have the same API registry, can't even stop going where the synergy comes to play over suite. So, so it's gonna be really, really hard for them to change that. But AWS super pragmatic. They're always by themselves that they'll listen to customers if they learn from customers suite as a proposition. I would not be surprised if AWS trying to bring things closer together, being morely together. >>Yeah. Well how about, can we talk about multicloud if, if, again, Oracle is very on on Oracle as you said before, but let's look forward, you know, half a year or a year. What do you think about Oracle's moves in, in multicloud in terms of what kind of penetration they're gonna have in the marketplace? You saw a lot of presentations at at cloud world, you know, we've looked pretty closely at the, the Microsoft Azure deal. I think that's really interesting. I've, I've called it a little bit of early days of a super cloud. What impact do you think this is gonna have on, on the marketplace? But, but both. And think about it within Oracle's customer base, I have no doubt they'll do great there. But what about beyond its existing install base? What do you guys think? >>Ryan, do you wanna jump on that? Go ahead. Go ahead Ryan. No, no, no, >>That's an excellent point. I think it aligns with what we've been talking about in terms of Lakehouse. I think Lake House will enable Oracle to pull more customers, more bicycle customers onto the Oracle platforms. And I think we're seeing all the signs pointing toward Oracle being able to make more inroads into the overall market. And that includes garnishing customers from the leaders in, in other words, because they are, you know, coming in as a innovator, a an alternative to, you know, the AWS proposition, the Google cloud proposition that they have less to lose and there's a result they can really drive the multi-cloud messaging to resonate with not only their existing customers, but also to be able to, to that question, Dave's posing actually garnish customers onto their platform. And, and that includes naturally my sequel but also OCI and so forth. So that's how I'm seeing this playing out. I think, you know, again, Oracle's reporting is indicating that, and I think what we saw, Oracle Cloud world is definitely validating the idea that Oracle can make more waves in the overall market in this regard. >>You know, I, I've floated this idea of Super cloud, it's kind of tongue in cheek, but, but there, I think there is some merit to it in terms of building on top of hyperscale infrastructure and abstracting some of the, that complexity. And one of the things that I'm most interested in is industry clouds and an Oracle acquisition of Cerner. I was struck by Larry Ellison's keynote, it was like, I don't know, an hour and a half and an hour and 15 minutes was focused on healthcare transformation. Well, >>So vertical, >>Right? And so, yeah, so you got Oracle's, you know, got some industry chops and you, and then you think about what they're building with, with not only oci, but then you got, you know, MyQ, you can now run in dedicated regions. You got ADB on on Exadata cloud to customer, you can put that OnPrem in in your data center and you look at what the other hyperscalers are, are doing. I I say other hyperscalers, I've always said Oracle's not really a hyperscaler, but they got a cloud so they're in the game. But you can't get, you know, big query OnPrem, you look at outposts, it's very limited in terms of, you know, the database support and again, that that will will evolve. But now you got Oracle's got, they announced Alloy, we can white label their cloud. So I'm interested in what you guys think about these moves, especially the industry cloud. We see, you know, Walmart is doing sort of their own cloud. You got Goldman Sachs doing a cloud. Do you, you guys, what do you think about that and what role does Oracle play? Any thoughts? >>Yeah, let me lemme jump on that for a moment. Now, especially with the MyQ, by making that available in multiple clouds, what they're doing is this follows the philosophy they've had the past with doing cloud, a customer taking the application and the data and putting it where the customer lives. If it's on premise, it's on premise. If it's in the cloud, it's in the cloud. By making the mice equal heat wave, essentially a plug compatible with any other mice equal as far as your, your database is concern and then giving you that integration with O L A P and ML and Data Lake and everything else, then what you've got is a compelling offering. You're making it easier for the customer to use. So I look the difference between MyQ and the Oracle database, MyQ is going to capture market more market share for them. >>You're not gonna find a lot of new users for the Oracle debate database. Yeah, there are always gonna be new users, don't get me wrong, but it's not gonna be a huge growth. Whereas my SQL heatwave is probably gonna be a major growth engine for Oracle going forward. Not just in their own cloud, but in AWS and in Azure and on premise over time that eventually it'll get there. It's not there now, but it will, they're doing the right thing on that basis. They're taking the services and when you talk about multicloud and making them available where the customer wants them, not forcing them to go where you want them, if that makes sense. And as far as where they're going in the future, I think they're gonna take a page outta what they've done with the Oracle database. They'll add things like JSON and XML and time series and spatial over time they'll make it a, a complete converged database like they did with the Oracle database. The difference being Oracle database will scale bigger and will have more transactions and be somewhat faster. And my SQL will be, for anyone who's not on the Oracle database, they're, they're not stupid, that's for sure. >>They've done Jason already. Right. But I give you that they could add graph and time series, right. Since eat with, Right, Right. Yeah, that's something absolutely right. That's, that's >>A sort of a logical move, right? >>Right. But that's, that's some kid ourselves, right? I mean has worked in Oracle's favor, right? 10 x 20 x, the amount of r and d, which is in the MyQ space, has been poured at trying to snatch workloads away from Oracle by starting with IBM 30 years ago, 20 years ago, Microsoft and, and, and, and didn't work, right? Database applications are extremely sticky when they run, you don't want to touch SIM and grow them, right? So that doesn't mean that heat phase is not an attractive offering, but it will be net new things, right? And what works in my SQL heat wave heat phases favor a little bit is it's not the massive enterprise applications which have like we the nails like, like you might be only running 30% or Oracle, but the connections and the interfaces into that is, is like 70, 80% of your enterprise. >>You take it out and it's like the spaghetti ball where you say, ah, no I really don't, don't want to do all that. Right? You don't, don't have that massive part with the equals heat phase sequel kind of like database which are more smaller tactical in comparison, but still I, I don't see them taking so much share. They will be growing because of a attractive value proposition quickly on the, the multi-cloud, right? I think it's not really multi-cloud. If you give people the chance to run your offering on different clouds, right? You can run it there. The multi-cloud advantages when the Uber offering comes out, which allows you to do things across those installations, right? I can migrate data, I can create data across something like Google has done with B query Omni, I can run predictive models or even make iron models in different place and distribute them, right? And Oracle is paving the road for that, but being available on these clouds. But the multi-cloud capability of database which knows I'm running on different clouds that is still yet to be built there. >>Yeah. And >>That the problem with >>That, that's the super cloud concept that I flowed and I I've always said kinda snowflake with a single global instance is sort of, you know, headed in that direction and maybe has a league. What's the issue with that mark? >>Yeah, the problem with the, with that version, the multi-cloud is clouds to charge egress fees. As long as they charge egress fees to move data between clouds, it's gonna make it very difficult to do a real multi-cloud implementation. Even Snowflake, which runs multi-cloud, has to pass out on the egress fees of their customer when data moves between clouds. And that's really expensive. I mean there, there is one customer I talked to who is beta testing for them, the MySQL heatwave and aws. The only reason they didn't want to do that until it was running on AWS is the egress fees were so great to move it to OCI that they couldn't afford it. Yeah. Egress fees are the big issue but, >>But Mark the, the point might be you might wanna root query and only get the results set back, right was much more tinier, which been the answer before for low latency between the class A problem, which we sometimes still have but mostly don't have. Right? And I think in general this with fees coming down based on the Oracle general E with fee move and it's very hard to justify those, right? But, but it's, it's not about moving data as a multi-cloud high value use case. It's about doing intelligent things with that data, right? Putting into other places, replicating it, what I'm saying the same thing what you said before, running remote queries on that, analyzing it, running AI on it, running AI models on that. That's the interesting thing. Cross administered in the same way. Taking things out, making sure compliance happens. Making sure when Ron says I don't want to be American anymore, I want to be in the European cloud that is gets migrated, right? So tho those are the interesting value use case which are really, really hard for enterprise to program hand by hand by developers and they would love to have out of the box and that's yet the innovation to come to, we have to come to see. But the first step to get there is that your software runs in multiple clouds and that's what Oracle's doing so well with my SQL >>Guys. Amazing. >>Go ahead. Yeah. >>Yeah. >>For example, >>Amazing amount of data knowledge and, and brain power in this market. Guys, I really want to thank you for coming on to the cube. Ron Holger. Mark, always a pleasure to have you on. Really appreciate your time. >>Well all the last names we're very happy for Romanic last and moderator. Thanks Dave for moderating us. All right, >>We'll see. We'll see you guys around. Safe travels to all and thank you for watching this power panel, The Truth About My SQL Heat Wave on the cube. Your leader in enterprise and emerging tech coverage.

>>Oracle continues to enhance my sequel Heatwave at a very rapid pace. The company is now in its fourth major release since the original announcement in December 2020. 1 of the main criticisms of my sequel, Heatwave, is that it only runs on O. C I. Oracle Cloud Infrastructure and as a lock in to Oracle's Cloud. Oracle recently announced that heat wave is now going to be available in AWS Cloud and it announced its intent to bring my sequel Heatwave to Azure. So my secret heatwave on AWS is a significant TAM expansion move for Oracle because of the momentum AWS Cloud continues to show. And evidently the Heatwave Engineering team has taken the development effort from O. C I. And is bringing that to A W S with a number of enhancements that we're gonna dig into today is senior vice president. My sequel Heatwave at Oracle is back with me on a cube conversation to discuss the latest heatwave news, and we're eager to hear any benchmarks relative to a W S or any others. Nippon has been leading the Heatwave engineering team for over 10 years and there's over 100 and 85 patents and database technology. Welcome back to the show and good to see you. >>Thank you. Very happy to be back. >>Now for those who might not have kept up with the news, uh, to kick things off, give us an overview of my sequel, Heatwave and its evolution. So far, >>so my sequel, Heat Wave, is a fully managed my secret database service offering from Oracle. Traditionally, my secret has been designed and optimised for transaction processing. So customers of my sequel then they had to run analytics or when they had to run machine learning, they would extract the data out of my sequel into some other database for doing. Unlike processing or machine learning processing my sequel, Heat provides all these capabilities built in to a single database service, which is my sequel. He'd fake So customers of my sequel don't need to move the data out with the same database. They can run transaction processing and predicts mixed workloads, machine learning, all with a very, very good performance in very good price performance. Furthermore, one of the design points of heat wave is is a scale out architecture, so the system continues to scale and performed very well, even when customers have very large late assignments. >>So we've seen some interesting moves by Oracle lately. The collaboration with Azure we've we've covered that pretty extensively. What was the impetus here for bringing my sequel Heatwave onto the AWS cloud? What were the drivers that you considered? >>So one of the observations is that a very large percentage of users of my sequel Heatwave, our AWS users who are migrating of Aurora or so already we see that a good percentage of my secret history of customers are migrating from GWS. However, there are some AWS customers who are still not able to migrate the O. C. I to my secret heat wave. And the reason is because of, um, exorbitant cost, which was charges. So in order to migrate the workload from AWS to go see, I digress. Charges are very high fees which becomes prohibitive for the customer or the second example we have seen is that the latency of practising a database which is outside of AWS is very high. So there's a class of customers who would like to get the benefits of my secret heatwave but were unable to do so and with this support of my secret trip inside of AWS, these customers can now get all the grease of the benefits of my secret he trip without having to pay the high fees or without having to suffer with the poorly agency, which is because of the ws architecture. >>Okay, so you're basically meeting the customer's where they are. So was this a straightforward lifted shift from from Oracle Cloud Infrastructure to AWS? >>No, it is not because one of the design girls we have with my sequel, Heatwave is that we want to provide our customers with the best price performance regardless of the cloud. So when we decided to offer my sequel, he headed west. Um, we have optimised my sequel Heatwave on it as well. So one of the things to point out is that this is a service with the data plane control plane and the console are natively running on AWS. And the benefits of doing so is that now we can optimise my sequel Heatwave for the E. W s architecture. In addition to that, we have also announced a bunch of new capabilities as a part of the service which will also be available to the my secret history of customers and our CI, But we just announced them and we're offering them as a part of my secret history of offering on AWS. >>So I just want to make sure I understand that it's not like you just wrapped your stack in a container and stuck it into a W s to be hosted. You're saying you're actually taking advantage of the capabilities of the AWS cloud natively? And I think you've made some other enhancements as well that you're alluding to. Can you maybe, uh, elucidate on those? Sure. >>So for status, um, we have taken the mind sequel Heatwave code and we have optimised for the It was infrastructure with its computer network. And as a result, customers get very good performance and price performance. Uh, with my secret he trade in AWS. That's one performance. Second thing is, we have designed new interactive counsel for the service, which means that customers can now provision there instances with the council. But in addition, they can also manage their schemas. They can. Then court is directly from the council. Autopilot is integrated. The council we have introduced performance monitoring, so a lot of capabilities which we have introduced as a part of the new counsel. The third thing is that we have added a bunch of new security features, uh, expose some of the security features which were part of the My Secret Enterprise edition as a part of the service, which gives customers now a choice of using these features to build more secure applications. And finally, we have extended my secret autopilot for a number of old gpus cases. In the past, my secret autopilot had a lot of capabilities for Benedict, and now we have augmented my secret autopilot to offer capabilities for elderly people. Includes as well. >>But there was something in your press release called Auto thread. Pooling says it provides higher and sustained throughput. High concerns concerns concurrency by determining Apple number of transactions, which should be executed. Uh, what is that all about? The auto thread pool? It seems pretty interesting. How does it affect performance? Can you help us understand that? >>Yes, and this is one of the capabilities of alluding to which we have added in my secret autopilot for transaction processing. So here is the basic idea. If you have a system where there's a large number of old EP transactions coming into it at a high degrees of concurrency in many of the existing systems of my sequel based systems, it can lead to a state where there are few transactions executing, but a bunch of them can get blocked with or a pilot tried pulling. What we basically do is we do workload aware admission control and what this does is it figures out, what's the right scheduling or all of these algorithms, so that either the transactions are executing or as soon as something frees up, they can start executing, so there's no transaction which is blocked. The advantage to the customer of this capability is twofold. A get significantly better throughput compared to service like Aurora at high levels of concurrency. So at high concurrency, for instance, uh, my secret because of this capability Uh oh, thread pulling offers up to 10 times higher compared to Aurora, that's one first benefit better throughput. The second advantage is that the true part of the system never drops, even at high levels of concurrency, whereas in the case of Aurora, the trooper goes up, but then, at high concurrency is, let's say, starting, uh, level of 500 or something. It depends upon the underlying shit they're using the troopers just dropping where it's with my secret heatwave. The truth will never drops. Now, the ramification for the customer is that if the truth is not gonna drop, the user can start off with a small shape, get the performance and be a show that even the workload increases. They will never get a performance, which is worse than what they're getting with lower levels of concurrency. So this let's leads to customers provisioning a shape which is just right for them. And if they need, they can, uh, go with the largest shape. But they don't like, you know, over pay. So those are the two benefits. Better performance and sustain, uh, regardless of the level of concurrency. >>So how do we quantify that? I know you've got some benchmarks. How can you share comparisons with other cloud databases especially interested in in Amazon's own databases are obviously very popular, and and are you publishing those again and get hub, as you have done in the past? Take us through the benchmarks. >>Sure, So benchmarks are important because that gives customers a sense of what performance to expect and what price performance to expect. So we have run a number of benchmarks. And yes, all these benchmarks are available on guitar for customers to take a look at. So we have performance results on all the three castle workloads, ol DB Analytics and Machine Learning. So let's start with the Rdp for Rdp and primarily because of the auto thread pulling feature. We show that for the IPCC for attended dataset at high levels of concurrency, heatwave offers up to 10 times better throughput and this performance is sustained, whereas in the case of Aurora, the performance really drops. So that's the first thing that, uh, tend to alibi. Sorry, 10 gigabytes. B B C c. I can come and see the performance are the throughput is 10 times better than Aurora for analytics. We have done a comparison of my secret heatwave in AWS and compared with Red Ship Snowflake Googled inquiry, we find that the price performance of my secret heatwave compared to read ship is seven times better. So my sequel, Heat Wave in AWS, provides seven times better price performance than red ship. That's a very, uh, interesting results to us. Which means that customers of Red Shift are really going to take the service seriously because they're gonna get seven times better price performance. And this is all running in a W s so compared. >>Okay, carry on. >>And then I was gonna say, compared to like, Snowflake, uh, in AWS offers 10 times better price performance. And compared to Google, ubiquity offers 12 times better price performance. And this is based on a four terabyte p PCH workload. Results are available on guitar, and then the third category is machine learning and for machine learning, uh, for training, the performance of my secret heatwave is 25 times faster compared to that shit. So all the three workloads we have benchmark's results, and all of these scripts are available on YouTube. >>Okay, so you're comparing, uh, my sequel Heatwave on AWS to Red Shift and snowflake on AWS. And you're comparing my sequel Heatwave on a W s too big query. Obviously running on on Google. Um, you know, one of the things Oracle is done in the past when you get the price performance and I've always tried to call fouls you're, like, double your price for running the oracle database. Uh, not Heatwave, but Oracle Database on a W s. And then you'll show how it's it's so much cheaper on on Oracle will be like Okay, come on. But they're not doing that here. You're basically taking my sequel Heatwave on a W s. I presume you're using the same pricing for whatever you see to whatever else you're using. Storage, um, reserved instances. That's apples to apples on A W s. And you have to obviously do some kind of mapping for for Google, for big query. Can you just verify that for me, >>we are being more than fair on two dimensions. The first thing is, when I'm talking about the price performance for analytics, right for, uh, with my secret heat rape, the cost I'm talking about from my secret heat rape is the cost of running transaction processing, analytics and machine learning. So it's a fully loaded cost for the case of my secret heatwave. There has been I'm talking about red ship when I'm talking about Snowflake. I'm just talking about the cost of these databases for running, and it's only it's not, including the source database, which may be more or some other database, right? So that's the first aspect that far, uh, trip. It's the cost for running all three kinds of workloads, whereas for the competition, it's only for running analytics. The second thing is that for these are those services whether it's like shit or snowflakes, That's right. We're talking about one year, fully paid up front cost, right? So that's what most of the customers would pay for. Many of the customers would pay that they will sign a one year contract and pay all the costs ahead of time because they get a discount. So we're using that price and the case of Snowflake. The costs were using is their standard edition of price, not the Enterprise edition price. So yes, uh, more than in this competitive. >>Yeah, I think that's an important point. I saw an analysis by Marx Tamer on Wiki Bond, where he was doing the TCO comparisons. And I mean, if you have to use two separate databases in two separate licences and you have to do et yelling and all the labour associated with that, that that's that's a big deal and you're not even including that aspect in in your comparison. So that's pretty impressive. To what do you attribute that? You know, given that unlike, oh, ci within the AWS cloud, you don't have as much control over the underlying hardware. >>So look hard, but is one aspect. Okay, so there are three things which give us this advantage. The first thing is, uh, we have designed hateful foreign scale out architecture. So we came up with new algorithms we have come up with, like, uh, one of the design points for heat wave is a massively partitioned architecture, which leads to a very high degree of parallelism. So that's a lot of hype. Each were built, So that's the first part. The second thing is that although we don't have control over the hardware, but the second design point for heat wave is that it is optimised for commodity cloud and the commodity infrastructure so we can have another guys, what to say? The computer we get, how much network bandwidth do we get? How much of, like objects to a brand that we get in here? W s. And we have tuned heat for that. That's the second point And the third thing is my secret autopilot, which provides machine learning based automation. So what it does is that has the users workload is running. It learns from it, it improves, uh, various premieres in the system. So the system keeps getting better as you learn more and more questions. And this is the third thing, uh, as a result of which we get a significant edge over the competition. >>Interesting. I mean, look, any I SV can go on any cloud and take advantage of it. And that's, uh I love it. We live in a new world. How about machine learning workloads? What? What did you see there in terms of performance and benchmarks? >>Right. So machine learning. We offer three capabilities training, which is fully automated, running in France and explanations. So one of the things which many of our customers told us coming from the enterprise is that explanations are very important to them because, uh, customers want to know that. Why did the the system, uh, choose a certain prediction? So we offer explanations for all models which have been derailed by. That's the first thing. Now, one of the interesting things about training is that training is usually the most expensive phase of machine learning. So we have spent a lot of time improving the performance of training. So we have a bunch of techniques which we have developed inside of Oracle to improve the training process. For instance, we have, uh, metal and proxy models, which really give us an advantage. We use adaptive sampling. We have, uh, invented in techniques for paralysing the hyper parameter search. So as a result of a lot of this work, our training is about 25 times faster than that ship them health and all the data is, uh, inside the database. All this processing is being done inside the database, so it's much faster. It is inside the database. And I want to point out that there is no additional charge for the history of customers because we're using the same cluster. You're not working in your service. So all of these machine learning capabilities are being offered at no additional charge inside the database and as a performance, which is significantly faster than that, >>are you taking advantage of or is there any, uh, need not need, but any advantage that you can get if two by exploiting things like gravity. John, we've talked about that a little bit in the past. Or trainee. Um, you just mentioned training so custom silicon that AWS is doing, you're taking advantage of that. Do you need to? Can you give us some insight >>there? So there are two things, right? We're always evaluating What are the choices we have from hybrid perspective? Obviously, for us to leverage is right and like all the things you mention about like we have considered them. But there are two things to consider. One is he is a memory system. So he favours a big is the dominant cost. The processor is a person of the cost, but memory is the dominant cost. So what we have evaluated and found is that the current shape which we are using is going to provide our customers with the best price performance. That's the first thing. The second thing is that there are opportunities at times when we can use a specialised processor for vaccinating the world for a bit. But then it becomes a matter of the cost of the customer. Advantage of our current architecture is on the same hardware. Customers are getting very good performance. Very good, energetic performance in a very good machine learning performance. If you will go with the specialised processor, it may. Actually, it's a machine learning, but then it's an additional cost with the customers we need to pay. So we are very sensitive to the customer's request, which is usually to provide very good performance at a very low cost. And we feel is that the current design we have as providing customers very good performance and very good price performance. >>So part of that is architectural. The memory intensive nature of of heat wave. The other is A W s pricing. If AWS pricing were to flip, it might make more sense for you to take advantage of something like like cranium. Okay, great. Thank you. And welcome back to the benchmarks benchmarks. Sometimes they're artificial right there. A car can go from 0 to 60 in two seconds. But I might not be able to experience that level of performance. Do you? Do you have any real world numbers from customers that have used my sequel Heatwave on A W s. And how they look at performance? >>Yes, absolutely so the my Secret service on the AWS. This has been in Vera for, like, since November, right? So we have a lot of customers who have tried the service. And what actually we have found is that many of these customers, um, planning to migrate from Aurora to my secret heat rape. And what they find is that the performance difference is actually much more pronounced than what I was talking about. Because with Aurora, the performance is actually much poorer compared to uh, like what I've talked about. So in some of these cases, the customers found improvement from 60 times, 240 times, right? So he travels 100 for 240 times faster. It was much less expensive. And the third thing, which is you know, a noteworthy is that customers don't need to change their applications. So if you ask the top three reasons why customers are migrating, it's because of this. No change to the application much faster, and it is cheaper. So in some cases, like Johnny Bites, what they found is that the performance of their applications for the complex storeys was about 60 to 90 times faster. Then we had 60 technologies. What they found is that the performance of heat we have compared to Aurora was 100 and 39 times faster. So, yes, we do have many such examples from real workloads from customers who have tried it. And all across what we find is if it offers better performance, lower cost and a single database such that it is compatible with all existing by sequel based applications and workloads. >>Really impressive. The analysts I talked to, they're all gaga over heatwave, and I can see why. Okay, last question. Maybe maybe two and one. Uh, what's next? In terms of new capabilities that customers are going to be able to leverage and any other clouds that you're thinking about? We talked about that upfront, but >>so in terms of the capabilities you have seen, like they have been, you know, non stop attending to the feedback from the customers in reacting to it. And also, we have been in a wedding like organically. So that's something which is gonna continue. So, yes, you can fully expect that people not dressed and continue to in a way and with respect to the other clouds. Yes, we are planning to support my sequel. He tripped on a show, and this is something that will be announced in the near future. Great. >>All right, Thank you. Really appreciate the the overview. Congratulations on the work. Really exciting news that you're moving my sequel Heatwave into other clouds. It's something that we've been expecting for some time. So it's great to see you guys, uh, making that move, and as always, great to have you on the Cube. >>Thank you for the opportunity. >>All right. And thank you for watching this special cube conversation. I'm Dave Volonte, and we'll see you next time.

(upbeat music) >> When Oracle acquired Sun in 2009, it paid $5.6 billion net of Sun's cash and debt. Now I argued at the time that Oracle got one of the best deals in the history of enterprise tech, and I got a lot of grief for saying that because Sun had a declining business, it was losing money, and its revenue was under serious pressure as it tried to hang on for dear life. But Safra Catz understood that Oracle could pay Sun's lower profit and lagging businesses, like its low index 86 product lines, and even if Sun's revenue was cut in half, because Oracle has such a high revenue multiple as a software company, it could almost instantly generate $25 to $30 billion in shareholder value on paper. In addition, it was a catalyst for Oracle to initiate its highly differentiated engineering systems business, and was actually the precursor to Oracle's Cloud. Oracle saw that it could capture high margin dollars that used to go to partners like HP, it's original exit data partner, and get paid for the full stack across infrastructure, middleware, database, and application software, when eventually got really serious about cloud. Now there was also a major technology angle to this story. Remember Sun's tagline, "the network is the computer"? Well, they should have just called it cloud. Through the Sun acquisition. Oracle also got a couple of key technologies, Java, the number one programming language in the world, and MySQL, a key ingredient of the LAMP stack, that's Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP, Perl or Python, on which the internet is basically built, and is used by many cloud services like Facebook, Twitter, WordPress, Flicker, Amazon, Aurora, and many other examples, including, by the way, Maria DB, which is a fork of MySQL created by MySQL's creator, basically in protest to Oracle's acquisition; the drama is Oscar worthy. It gets even better. In 2020, Oracle began introducing a new version of MySQL called MySQL HeatWave, and since late 2020 it's been in sort of a super cycle rolling, out three new releases in less than a year and a half in an attempt to expand its Tam and compete in new markets. Now we covered the release of MySQL Autopilot, which uses machine learning to automate management functions. And we also covered the bench marketing that Oracle produced against Snowflake, AWS, Azure, and Google. And Oracle's at it again with HeatWave, adding machine learning into its database capabilities, along with previously available integrations of OLAP and OLTP. This, of course, is in line with Oracle's converged database philosophy, which, as we've reported, is different from other cloud database providers, most notably Amazon, which takes the right tool for the right job approach and chooses database specialization over a one size fits all strategy. Now we've asked Oracle to come on theCUBE and explain these moves, and I'm pleased to welcome back Nipun Agarwal, who's the senior vice president for MySQL Database and HeatWave at Oracle. And today, in this video exclusive, we'll discuss machine learning, other new capabilities around elasticity and compression, and then any benchmark data that Nipun wants to share. Nipun's been a leading advocate of the HeatWave program. He's led engineering in that team for over 10 years, and he has over 185 patents in database technologies. Welcome back to the show Nipun. Great to see you again. Thanks for coming on. >> Thank you, Dave. Very happy to be back. >> Yeah, now for those who may not have kept up with the news, maybe to kick things off you could give us an overview of what MySQL HeatWave actually is so that we're all on the same page. >> Sure, Dave, MySQL HeatWave is a fully managed MySQL database service from Oracle, and it has a builtin query accelerator called HeatWave, and that's the part which is unique. So with MySQL HeatWave, customers of MySQL get a single database which they can use for transactional processing, for analytics, and for mixed workloads because traditionally MySQL has been designed and optimized for transaction processing. So in the past, when customers had to run analytics with the MySQL based service, they would need to move the data out of MySQL into some other database for running analytics. So they would end up with two different databases and it would take some time to move the data out of MySQL into this other system. With MySQL HeatWave, we have solved this problem and customers now have a single MySQL database for all their applications, and they can get the good performance of analytics without any changes to their MySQL application. >> Now it's no secret that a lot of times, you know, queries are not, you know, most efficiently written, and critics of MySQL HeatWave will claim that this product is very memory and cluster intensive, it has a heavy footprint that adds to cost. How do you answer that, Nipun? >> Right, so for offering any database service in the cloud there are two dimensions, performance and cost, and we have been very cognizant of both of them. So it is indeed the case that HeatWave is a, in-memory query accelerator, which is why we get very good performance, but it is also the case that we have optimized HeatWave for commodity cloud services. So for instance, we use the least expensive compute. We use the least expensive storage. So what I would suggest is for the customers who kind of would like to know what is the price performance advantage of HeatWave compared to any database we have benchmark against, Redshift, Snowflake, Google BigQuery, Azure Synapse, HeatWave is significantly faster and significantly lower price on a multitude of workloads. So not only is it in-memory database and optimized for that, but we have also optimized it for commodity cloud services, which makes it much lower price than the competition. >> Well, at the end of the day, it's customers that sort of decide what the truth is. So to date, what's been the customer reaction? Are they moving from other clouds from on-prem environments? Both why, you know, what are you seeing? >> Right, so we are definitely a whole bunch of migrations of customers who are running MySQL on-premise to the cloud, to MySQL HeatWave. That's definitely happening. What is also very interesting is we are seeing that a very large percentage of customers, more than half the customers who are coming to MySQL HeatWave, are migrating from other clouds. We have a lot of migrations coming from AWS Aurora, migrations from RedShift, migrations from RDS MySQL, TerriData, SAP HANA, right. So we are seeing migrations from a whole bunch of other databases and other cloud services to MySQL HeatWave. And the main reason we are told why customers are migrating from other databases to MySQL HeatWave are lower cost, better performance, and no change to their application because many of these services, like AWS Aurora are ETL compatible with MySQL. So when customers try MySQL HeatWave, not only do they get better performance at a lower cost, but they find that they can migrate their application without any changes, and that's a big incentive for them. >> Great, thank you, Nipun. So can you give us some names? Are there some real world examples of these customers that have migrated to MySQL HeatWave that you can share? >> Oh, absolutely, I'll give you a few names. Stutor.com, this is an educational SaaS provider raised out of Brazil. They were using Google BigQuery, and when they migrated to MySQL HeatWave, they found a 300X, right, 300 times improvement in performance, and it lowered their cost by 85 (audio cut out). Another example is Neovera. They offer cybersecurity solutions and they were running their application on an on-premise version of MySQL when they migrated to MySQL HeatWave, their application improved in performance by 300 times and their cost reduced by 80%, right. So by going from on-premise to MySQL HeatWave, they reduced the cost by 80%, improved performance by 300 times. We are Glass, another customer based out of Brazil. They were running on AWS EC2, and when they migrated, within hours they found that there was a significant improvement, like, you know, over 5X improvement in database performance, and they were able to accommodate a very large virtual event, which had more than a million visitors. Another example, Genius Senority. They are a game designer in Japan, and when they moved to MySQL HeatWave, they found a 90 times percent improvement in performance. And there many, many more like a lot of migrations, again, from like, you know, Aurora, RedShift and many other databases as well. And consistently what we hear is (audio cut out) getting much better performance at a much lower cost without any change to their application. >> Great, thank you. You know, when I ask that question, a lot of times I get, "Well, I can't name the customer name," but I got to give Oracle credit, a lot of times you guys have at your fingertips. So you're not the only one, but it's somewhat rare in this industry. So, okay, so you got some good feedback from those customers that did migrate to MySQL HeatWave. What else did they tell you that they wanted? Did they, you know, kind of share a wishlist and some of the white space that you guys should be working on? What'd they tell you? >> Right, so as customers are moving more data into MySQL HeatWave, as they're consolidating more data into MySQL HeatWave, customers want to run other kinds of processing with this data. A very popular one is (audio cut out) So we have had multiple customers who told us that they wanted to run machine learning with data which is stored in MySQL HeatWave, and for that they have to extract the data out of MySQL (audio cut out). So that was the first feedback we got. Second thing is MySQL HeatWave is a highly scalable system. What that means is that as you add more nodes to a HeatWave cluster, the performance of the system improves almost linearly. But currently customers need to perform some manual steps to add most to a cluster or to reduce the cluster size. So that was other feedback we got that people wanted this thing to be automated. Third thing is that we have shown in the previous results, that HeatWave is significantly faster and significantly lower price compared to competitive services. So we got feedback from customers that can we trade off some performance to get even lower cost, and that's what we have looked at. And then finally, like we have some results on various data sizes with TPC-H. Customers wanted to see if we can offer some more data points as to how does HeatWave perform on other kinds of workloads. And that's what we've been working on for the several months. >> Okay, Nipun, we're going to get into some of that, but, so how did you go about addressing these requirements? >> Right, so the first thing is we are announcing support for in-database machine learning, meaning that customers who have their data inside MySQL HeatWave can now run training, inference, and prediction all inside the database without the data or the model ever having to leave the database. So that's how we address the first one. Second thing is we are offering support for real time elasticity, meaning that customers can scale up or scale down to any number of nodes. This requires no manual intervention on part of the user, and for the entire duration of the resize operation, the system is fully available. The third, in terms of the costs, we have double the amount of data that can be processed per node. So if you look at a HeatWave cluster, the size of the cluster determines the cost. So by doubling the amount of data that can be processed per node, we have effectively reduced the cluster size which is required for planning a given workload to have, which means it reduces the cost to the customer by half. And finally, we have also run the TPC-DS workload on HeatWave and compared it with other vendors. So now customers can have another data point in terms of the performance and the cost comparison of HeatWave with other services. >> All right, and I promise, I'm going to ask you about the benchmarks, but I want to come back and drill into these a bit. How is HeatWave ML different from competitive offerings? Take for instance, Redshift ML, for example. >> Sure, okay, so this is a good comparison. Let's start with, let's say RedShift ML, like there are some systems like, you know, Snowflake, which don't even offer any, like, processing of machine learning inside the database, and they expect customers to write a whole bunch of code, in say Python or Java, to do machine learning. RedShift ML does have integration with SQL. That's a good start. However, when customers of Redshift need to run machine learning, and they invoke Redshift ML, it makes a call to another service, SageMaker, right, where so the data needs to be exported to a different service. The model is generated, and the model is also outside RedShift. With HeatWave ML, the data resides always inside the MySQL database service. We are able to generate models. We are able to train the models, run inference, run explanations, all inside the MySQL HeatWave service. So the data, or the model, never have to leave the database, which means that both the data and the models can now be secured by the same access control mechanisms as the rest of the data. So that's the first part, that there is no need for any ETL. The second aspect is the automation. Training is a very important part of machine learning, right, and it impacts the quality of the predictions and such. So traditionally, customers would employ data scientists to influence the training process so that it's done right. And even in the case of Redshift ML, the users are expected to provide a lot of parameters to the training process. So the second thing which we have worked on with HeatWave ML is that it is fully automated. There is absolutely no user intervention required for training. Third is in terms of performance. So one of the things we are very, very sensitive to is performance because performance determines the eventual cost to the customer. So again, in some benchmarks, which we have published, and these are all available on GitHub, we are showing how HeatWave ML is 25 times faster than Redshift ML, and here's the kicker, at 1% of the cost. So four benefits, the data all remain secure inside the database service, it's fully automated, much faster, much lower cost than the competition. >> All right, thank you Nipun. Now, so there's a lot of talk these days about explainability and AI. You know, the system can very accurately tell you that it's a cat, you know, or for you Silicon Valley fans, it's a hot dog or not a hot dog, but they can't tell you how the system got there. So what is explainability, and why should people care about it? >> Right, so when we were talking to customers about what they would like from a machine learning based solution, one of the feedbacks we got is that enterprise is a little slow or averse to uptaking machine learning, because it seems to be, you know, like magic, right? And enterprises have the obligation to be able to explain, or to provide a answer to their customers as to why did the database make a certain choice. With a rule based solution it's simple, it's a rule based thing, and you know what the logic was. So the reason explanations are important is because customers want to know why did the system make a certain prediction? One of the important characteristics of HeatWave ML is that any model which is generated by HeatWave ML can be explained, and we can do both global explanations or model explanations as well as we can also do local explanations. So when the system makes a specific prediction using HeatWave ML, the user can find out why did the system make such a prediction? So for instance, if someone is being denied a loan, the user can figure out what were the attribute, what were the features which led to that decision? So this ensures, like, you know, fairness, and many of the times there is also like a need for regulatory compliance where users have a right to know. So we feel that explanations are very important for enterprise workload, and that's why every model which is generated by HeatWave ML can be explained. >> Now I got to give Snowflakes some props, you know, this whole idea of separating compute from storage, but also bringing the database to the cloud and driving elasticity. So that's been a key enabler and has solved a lot of problems, in particular the snake swallowing the basketball problem, as I often say. But what about elasticity and elasticity in real time? How is your version, and there's a lot of companies chasing this, how is your approach to an elastic cloud database service different from what others are promoting these days? >> Right, so a couple of characteristics. One is that we have now fully automated the process of elasticity, meaning that if a user wants to scale up or scale down, the only thing they need to specify is the eventual size of the cluster and the system completely takes care of it transparently. But then there are a few characteristics which are very unique. So for instance, we can scale up or scale down to any number of nodes. Whereas in the case of Snowflake, the number of nodes someone can scale up or scale down to are the powers of two. So if a user needs 70 CPUs, well, their choice is either 64 or 128. So by providing this flexibly with MySQL HeatWave, customers get a custom fit. So they can get a cluster which is optimized for their specific portal. So that's the first thing, flexibility of scaling up or down to any number of nodes. The second thing is that after the operation is completed, the system is fully balanced, meaning the data across the various nodes is fully balanced. That is not the case with many solutions. So for instance, in the case of Redshift, after the resize operation is done, the user is expected to manually balance the data, which can be very cumbersome. And the third aspect is that while the resize operation is going on, the HeatWave cluster is completely available for queries, for DMLS, for loading more data. That is, again, not the case with Redshift. Redshift, suppose the operation takes 10 to 15 minutes, during that window of time, the system is not available for writes, and for a big part of that chunk of time, the system is not even available for queries, which is very limiting. So the advantages we have are fully flexible, the system is in a balanced state, and the system is completely available for the entire duration operation. >> Yeah, I guess you got that hypergranularity, which, you know, sometimes they say, "Well, t-shirt sizes are good enough," but then I think of myself, some t-shirts fit me better than others, so. Okay, I saw on the announcement that you have this lower price point for customers. How did you actually achieve this? Could you give us some details around that please? >> Sure, so there are two things for announcing this service, which lower the cost for the customers. The first thing is that we have doubled the amount of data that can be processed by a HeatWave node. So if we have doubled the amount of data, which can be a process by a node, the cluster size which is required by customers reduces to half, and that's why the cost drops to half. The way we have managed to do this is by two things. One is support for Bloom filters, which reduces the amount of intermediate memory. And second is we compress the base data. So these are the two techniques we have used to process more data per node. The second way by which we are lowering the cost for the customers is by supporting pause and resume of HeatWave. And many times you find customers of like HeatWave and other services that they want to run some other queries or some other workloads for some duration of time, but then they don't need the cluster for a few hours. Now with the support for pause and resume, customers can pause the cluster and the HeatWave cluster instantaneously stops. And when they resume, not only do we fetch the data, in a very, like, you know, a quick pace from the object store, but we also preserve all the statistics, which are used by Autopilot. So both the data and the metadata are fetched, extremely fast from the object store. So with these two capabilities we feel that it'll drive down the cost to our customers even more. >> Got it, thank you. Okay, I promised I was going to get to the benchmarks. Let's have it. How do you compare with others but specifically cloud databases? I mean, and how do we know these benchmarks are real? My friends at EMC, they were back in the day, they were brilliant at doing benchmarks. They would produce these beautiful PowerPoints charts, but it was kind of opaque, but what do you say to that? >> Right, so there are multiple things I would say. The first thing is that this time we have published two benchmarks, one is for machine learning and other is for SQL analytics. All the benchmarks, including the scripts which we have used are available on GitHub. So we have full transparency, and we invite and encourage customers or other service providers to download the scripts, to download the benchmarks and see if they get any different results, right. So what we are seeing, we have published it for other people to try and validate. That's the first part. Now for machine learning, there hasn't been a precedence for enterprise benchmarks so we talk about aiding open data sets and we have published benchmarks for those, right? So both for classification, as well as for aggression, we have run the training times, and that's where we find that HeatWave MLS is 25 times faster than RedShift ML at one percent of the cost. So fully transparent, available. For SQL analytics, in the past we have shown comparisons with TPC-H. So we would show TPC-H across various databases, across various data sizes. This time we decided to use TPC-DS. the advantage of TPC-DS over TPC-H is that it has more number of queries, the queries are more complex, the schema is more complex, and there is a lot more data skew. So it represents a different class of workloads, and which is very interesting. So these are queries derived from the TPC-DS benchmark. So the numbers we have are published this time are for 10 terabyte TPC-DS, and we are comparing with all the four majors services, Redshift, Snowflake, Google BigQuery, Azure Synapse. And in all the cases, HeatWave is significantly faster and significantly lower priced. Now one of the things I want to point out is that when we are doing the cost comparison with other vendors, we are being overly fair. For instance, the cost of HeatWave includes the cost of both the MySQL node as well as the HeatWave node, and with this setup, customers can run transaction processing analytics as well as machine learning. So the price captures all of it. Whereas with the other vendors, the comparison is only for the analytic queries, right? So if customers wanted to run RDP, you would need to add the cost of that database. Or if customers wanted to run machine learning, you would need to add the cost of that service. Furthermore, with the case of HeatWave, we are quoting pay as you go price, whereas for other vendors like, you know, RedShift, and like, you know, where applicable, we are quoting one year, fully paid upfront cost rate. So it's like, you know, very fair comparison. So in terms of the numbers though, price performance for TPC-DS, we are about 4.8 times better price performance compared to RedShift We are 14.4 times better price performance compared to Snowflake, 13 times better than Google BigQuery, and 15 times better than Synapse. So across the board, we are significantly faster and significantly lower price. And as I said, all of these scripts are available in GitHub for people to drive for themselves. >> Okay, all right, I get it. So I think what you're saying is, you could have said this is what it's going to cost for you to do both analytics and transaction processing on a competitive platform versus what it takes to do that on Oracle MySQL HeatWave, but you're not doing that. You're saying, let's take them head on in their sweet spot of analytics, or OLTP separately and you're saying you still beat them. Okay, so you got this one database service in your cloud that supports transactions and analytics and machine learning. How much do you estimate your saving companies with this integrated approach versus the alternative of kind of what I called upfront, the right tool for the right job, and admittedly having to ETL tools. How can you quantify that? >> Right, so, okay. The numbers I call it, right, at the end of the day in a cloud service price performance is the metric which gives a sense as to how much the customers are going to save. So for instance, for like a TPC-DS workload, if we are 14 times better price performance than Snowflake, it means that our cost is going to be 1/14th for what customers would pay for Snowflake. Now, in addition, in other costs, in terms of migrating the data, having to manage two different databases, having to pay for other service for like, you know, machine learning, that's all extra and that depends upon what tools customers are using or what other services they're using for transaction processing or for machine learning. But these numbers themselves, right, like they're very, very compelling. If we are 1/5th the cost of Redshift, right, or 1/14th of Snowflake, these numbers, like, themselves are very, very compelling. And that's the reason we are seeing so many of these migrations from these databases to MySQL HeatWave. >> Okay, great, thank you. Our last question, in the Q3 earnings call for fiscal 22, Larry Ellison said that "MySQL HeatWave is coming soon on AWS," and that caught a lot of people's attention. That's not like Oracle. I mean, people might say maybe that's an indication that you're not having success moving customers to OCI. So you got to go to other clouds, which by the way I applaud, but any comments on that? >> Yep, this is very much like Oracle. So if you look at one of the big reasons for success of the Oracle database and why Oracle database is the most popular database is because Oracle database runs on all the platforms, and that has been the case from day one. So very akin to that, the idea is that there's a lot of value in MySQL HeatWave, and we want to make sure that we can offer same value to the customers of MySQL running on any cloud, whether it's OCI, whether it's the AWS, or any other cloud. So this shows how confident we are in our offering, and we believe that in other clouds as well, customers will find significant advantage by having a single database, which is much faster and much lower price then what alternatives they currently have. So this shows how confident we are about our products and services. >> Well, that's great, I mean, obviously for you, you're in MySQL group. You love that, right? The more places you can run, the better it is for you, of course, and your customers. Okay, Nipun, we got to leave it there. As always it's great to have you on theCUBE, really appreciate your time. Thanks for coming on and sharing the new innovations. Congratulations on all the progress you're making here. You're doing a great job. >> Thank you, Dave, and thank you for the opportunity. >> All right, and thank you for watching this CUBE conversation with Dave Vellante for theCUBE, your leader in enterprise tech coverage. We'll see you next time. (upbeat music)

(bright music) >> Surprising many people, including myself, Oracle last year began investing pretty heavily in the MySQL space. Now those investments continue today. Let me give you a brief history. Last December, Oracle made its first HeatWave announcement. Where converged OLTP and OLAP together in a single MySQL database. Now, what wasn't surprising was the approach Oracle took. They leveraged hardware to improve the performance and lower the cost. You see when Oracle acquired Sun more than a decade ago, rather than rely on loosely coupled partnerships with hardware vendors to speed up its databases. Oracle set out on a path to tightly integrate hardware and software innovations using its own in-house engineering. So with his first, MySQL HeatWave announcement, Oracle leaned heavily on developing software on top of an in-memory database technology to create an embedded OLAP capability that eliminates the need for ETL and data from a transaction system into a separate analytics database. Now in doing so, Oracle is taking a similar approach with its MySQL today, as it does for its, or back then, whereas it does for its mainstream Oracle database. And today extends that. And what I mean by that is it's converging capabilities in a single platform. So the argument is this simplifies and accelerates analytics that lowers the costs and allows analytics, things like analytics to be run on data that is more fresh. Now, as many of you know, this is a different strategy than how, for example, an AWS approaches database where it creates purpose-built database services, targeted at specific workloads. These are philosophical design decisions made for a variety of reasons, but it's very clear which direction Oracle is headed in. Today, Oracle continues its HeatWave announcement cadence with a focus on increased automation as well. The company is continuing the trend of using clustering technology to scale out for both performance and capacity. And again, that theme of marrying hardware with software Oracle is also making announcements that focus on security. Hello everyone and welcome to this video exclusive. This is Dave Vellante. We're going to dig into these capabilities, Nipun Agarwal here. He's VP of MySQL HeatWave and advanced development in Oracle. Nipun has been leading the MySQL and HeatWave development effort for nearly a decade. He's got 180 patents to his name about half of which are associated with HeatWave. Nipun, welcome back to the show. Great to have you. >> Thank you, Dave. >> So before we get into the new news, if we could, maybe you could give us all a quick overview of HeatWave again, and what problems you originally set out to solve with it? >> Sure. So HeatWave is a in-memory query accelerator for MySQL. Now, as most people are aware, MySQL was originally designed and optimized for transactional processing. So when customers had the need to run analytics, they would need to extract data from the, MySQL database into another database and run analytics. With MySQL HeatWave, customers get a single database, which can be used both for transactional processing and for analytics. There's no need to move the data from one database to another database and all existing tools and applications, which are compatible with MySQL, continue to work as is. So in-memory query accelerator for MySQL and this is significantly faster than any version of MySQL database. And also it's much faster than specialized databases for analytics. >> Yeah, we're going to talk about that. And so obviously when you made the announcement last December, you had, I'm sure, a core group of, of early customers and beta customers, but then you opened it up to the world. So what was the reaction once you expose that to customers? >> The reaction has been very positive, Dave. So initially we're thinking that they're going to be a lot of customers who are on premise users of MySQL, who are going to migrate to the service. And surely that was the case. But the part which was very interesting and surprising is that we see many customers who are migrating from other cloud vendors or migrating from other cloud services to MySQL HeatWave. And most notably the biggest number of migrations we are seeing are from AWS Aurora and AWS RDS. >> Interesting. Okay. I wonder if you've got other feedback you're obviously responding in a pretty, pretty fast cadence here, you know, seven, eight month cadence. What are the feedback that you get, were there gaps that customers wanted you to to close? >> Sure. Yes. So as customers starting moving in to HeatWave they found that HeatWave is much faster, much cheaper. And when it's so much faster, they told us that there are some classes of queries, which could just not run earlier, which they can now with HeatWave. So it makes the applications richer because they can write new classes of queries with which they could not in the past. But in terms of the feedback or enhancement requests we got, I would say they will categorize the number one was automation. There've been customers move their database from on-premise to the cloud. They expect more automation. So that was the number one thing. The second thing was people wanted the ability to run analytics on larger sizes of data with MySQL HeatWave because they like what they saw and they wanted us to increase the data size limit, which can be processed by HeatWave. Third one was they wanted more classes of queries to be accessed with HeatWave. Initially, when we went out, HeatWave was designed to be an accelerator for analytic queries but more and more customers started seeing the benefit of beyond just analytics. More towards mixed workloads. So that was a third request. And then finally they wanted us to scale to a larger cluster size. And that's what we have done over the last several months that incorporating this feedback, which you've gotten from customers. >> So you're addressing those, those, those gaps. And thank you for sharing that with us. I got the press release here. I wonder if we could kind of go through these. Let's start with AutoPilot, you know, what's, what's that all about? What's different about AutoPilot? >> That's right. So MySQL AutoPilot provides machine learning based automation. So the first difference is that not only is it automating things, where and as a cloud provider as a service provider, we feel there are a lot of opportunities for us to automate, but the big difference about the approach we've taken with MySQL AutoPilot is that it's all driven based on the data and the queries. It's machine learning based automation. That's the first aspect. The second thing is this is all done natively in the server, right? So we are enhancing the, MySQL engine. We're enhancing the HeatWave engine and that's where all the logic and all the processing resides. In order to do this, we have had to collect new kinds of data. So for instance, in the past, people would collect statistics, which are based on just the data. Now we also collect statistics based on queries, for instance, what is the compilation time? What is the execution time? And we have augmented this with new machine learning models. And finally we have made a lot of innovations, a lot of inventions in the process where we collect data in a smart way. We process data in a smart way and the machine learning models we are talking about, also have a lot of innovation. And that's what gives us an edge over what other vendors may try to do. >> Yeah. I mean, I'm just, again, I'm looking at this meat, this pretty meaty preference, press release. Auto-provisioning, auto parallel load, auto data placement, auto encoding, auto error, auto recovery, auto scheduling, and you know, using a lot of, you know, computer science techniques that are well-known, first in first out, auto change propagation. So really focusing on, on driving that automation for customers. The other piece of it that struck me, and I said this in my intro is, you know, using clustering technology, clustering technology has been around for a long time as, as in-memory database, but applying it and integrating it. My sense is that's really about scale and performance and taking advantage of course, cloud being able to drive that scale instantaneously, but talk about scale a little bit in your philosophy there and why so much emphasis on scalability? >> Right. So what we want to do is to provide the fastest engine for running analytics. And that's why we do the processing in memory. Now, one of the issues with in process, in-memory processing is that the amount of data which you're processing has to reside in memory. So when we went out in the version one, given the footprint of the MySQL customers we spoke to, we thought 12 terabytes of processing at any given point in time, would be adequate. In the very first month, we got feedback that customers wanted us to process larger amounts of data with HeatWave, because they really like what they saw and they wanted us to increase. So if we have increased deployment from 12 terabytes to 32 terabytes and in order to do so, we now have a HeatWave cluster, which can be up to 64 nodes. That's one aspect on the query processing side. Now to answer the question as to why so much of an emphasis it's because this is something which is extremely difficult to do in query processing that as you scale the size of the cluster, the kind of algorithms, the kind of techniques you have to use so that you achieve a very high efficiency with a very large cluster. These are things which are easy to do, because what we want to make sure is that as customers have the need for like, like a processing larger amount of data, one of the big benefits customers get by using a cloud as opposed to on-premise is that they don't need to worry about provisioning gear ahead of time. So if they have more data with the cloud, they should be able to like process pool data easily. But when they process more data, they should expect the same kind of performance. So same kind of efficiency on a larger data size, similar to a smaller data size. And this is something traditionally other database vendors have struggled to provide. So this is a important problem. This is a tough engineering problem. And that's why a lot of emphasis on this to make sure that we provide our customers with very high efficiency of processing as they increase the size of the data. >> You're saying, traditionally, you'll get diminishing returns as you scale. So sort of as, as the volume grows, you're not able to take as much advantage or you're less efficient. And you're saying you've, you've largely solved that problem you're able to use. I mean, people always talk about scaling linearly and I'm always skeptical, but, but you're saying, especially in database, that's been a challenge, but you're, you're saying you've solved that problem largely. >> Right. What I would say is that we have a system which is very efficient, more efficient than like, you know, any of the database we are aware of. So as you said, perfect scaling is hard with you, right? I mean, that's a critical limit of scale factor one. That's very hard to achieve. We are now close to 90% efficiency for n2n queries. This is not for primitives. This is for n2n queries, both on industry benchmarks, as well as real world customer workloads. So this 90% efficiency we believe is very good and higher than what many of the vendors provide. >> Yeah. Right. So you're not, not just primitives the whole end to end cycle. I think 0.89, I think was the number that I, that I saw just to be technically correct there, but that's pretty, pretty good. Now let's talk about the benchmarks. It wouldn't be an Oracle announcement with some, some benchmarks. So you laid out today in your announcement, some, some pretty outstanding performance and price performance numbers, particularly you called out it's, it's. I feel like it's a badge of honor. If, if Oracle calls me out, I feel like I'm doing well. You called out Snowflake and Amazons. So maybe you could go over those benchmark results that we could peel the onion on that a little bit. >> Right. So the first thing to realize is that we want to have benchmarks, which are credible, right? So it's not the case that we have taken some specific unique workloads where HeatWave shines. That's not the case. What we did was we took a industry standard benchmark, which is like, you know, TPC-H. And furthermore, we had a third party, independent firm do this comparison. So let's first compare with Snowflake. On a 10 terabyte TPC-H benchmark HeatWave is seven times faster and one fifth the cost. So with this, it is 35 times better price performance compared to Snowflake, right? So seven times faster than Snowflake and one fifth of the cost. So HeatWave is 35 times better price performance compared to Snowflake. Not just that, Snowflake only does analytics, whereas MySQL HeatWave does both transactional processing and analytics. It's not a specialized database, MySQL HeatWave is a general purpose database, which can do both OLTP analytics whereas Snowflake can only do analytics. So to be 35 times more efficient than a database service, which is specialized only for one case, which is analytics, we think it's pretty good. So that's a comparison with Snowflake. >> So that's, that's you're using, I presume you got to be using list prices for that, obviously. >> That is correct. >> So there's discounts, let's put that into context of maybe 35 X better. You're not going to get that kind of discount. I wouldn't think. >> That is correct. >> Okay. What about Redshift? Aqua for Redshift has gained a lot of momentum in the marketplace. How do you compare against that? >> Right. So we did a comparison with Redshift, Aqua, same benchmark, 10 terabytes, TPC-H. And again, this was done by a third party. Here, HeatWave is six and a half times faster at half the cost. So HeatWave is 13 times better price performance compared to Redshift Aqua. And the same thing for Redshift. It's a specialized database only for analytics. So customers need to have two databases, one for transaction processing, one for analytics, with Redshift. Whereas with MySQL HeatWave, it's a single database for both. And it is so much faster than Redshift. That again, we feel is a pretty remarkable. >> Now, you mentioned earlier, but you're not, you're obviously I presume not, you're not cheating here. You're not including the cost of the transaction processing data store. Right? We're, we're, we're ignoring that for a minute. Ignoring that you got to, you know, move data, ETL, we're just talking about like the like, is that correct? >> Right. This is extremely fair and extremely generous comparison. Not only are we not including the cost of the source OLTP database, the cost in the case of the Redshift I'm talking about is the cost for one year paid full upfront. So this is a best pricing. A customer can get for one year subscription with Redshift. Whereas when I'm talking about HeatWave, this is the pay as you go price. And the third aspect is, this is Redshift when it is completely fully optimized. I don't think anyone else can get much better numbers on Redshift than we have. Right? So fully optimized configuration of Redshift looking at the one year pre-pay cost of Redshift and not including the source database. >> Okay. And then speaking of transaction processing database, what about Aurora? You mentioned earlier that that you're seeing a lot of migration from Aurora. Can you add some color to that? >> Right. And this is a very interesting question in a, it was a very interesting observation for us when we did the launch back in December, we had numbers on four terabytes, TPC-H with Aurora. So if you look at the same benchmark, four terabytes TPC-H HeatWave is 1,400 times faster than Aurora at half the cost, which makes it 2,800 times better price performance compared to Aurora. So very good number. What we have found is that many customers who are running on Aurora started migrating to HeatWave, and these customers had a mix of transaction processing and analytics, and the data sizes are much smaller. Even those customers found that there was a significant improvement in performance and reduction in costs when they migrated to HeatWave. In the announcement today, many of the references are those class of customers. So for that, we decided to choose another benchmark, which is called CH-benchmark on a much smaller data size. And even for that, even for mixed workloads, we find that HeatWave is 18 times faster, provides over a hundred times higher throughput than Aurora at 42% of the cost. So in terms of price performance gain, it is much, much better than Aurora, even for mixed workloads. And then if you consider a pure OLTP assume you have an application, which has only OLTP, which by the way is like, you know, a very uncommon scenario, but even if that were be the case, in that case for pure OLTP only, MySQL HeatWave is at par with Aurora, with respect to performance, but MySQL HeatWave costs 42% of Aurora. So the point is that in the whole spectrum, pure OLTP, mixed workloads or analytics, MySQL HeatWave is going to be fraction of the cost of a Aurora. And depending upon your query workload, your acceleration can be anywhere from 14,000 times to 18 times faster. >> That's interesting. I mean, you've been at this for the better part of a decade, because my sense is that HeatWave is all about OLAP. And that's really where you've put the majority, if not all of the innovation. But you're saying just coming into December's announcement, you were at par with a, in a, in a, in a, in a rare, but, but hypothetical OLTP workload. >> That is correct. >> Yeah. >> Well, you know, I got to push you still on this because a lot of times these benchmarks are a function of the skills of the individuals performing these tests, right? So can I, if I want to run them myself, you know, if you publish these benchmarks, what if a customer wants to replicate these tests and try to see if they can tune up, you know, Redshift better than you guys did? >> Sure. So I'll say a couple of things. One is all the numbers which I'm talking about both for Redshift and Snowflake were done by a third party firm, but all the numbers we is talking about, TPC-H, as well has CH-benchmark. All the scripts are published on GitHub. So anyone is very welcome. In fact, we encourage customers to go and try it for themselves, and they will find that the numbers are absolutely as advertised. In fact, we had couple of companies like in the last several months who went to GitHub, they downloaded our TPCH scripts and they reported that the performance numbers they were seeing with HeatWave were actually better than we had published back in December. And the reason was that since December we had new code, which was running. So our numbers were actually better than advertised. So all the benchmarks are published. They are all available on GitHub. You can go to the HeatWave website on oracle.com and get the link for it. And we welcome anyone to come and try these numbers for themselves. >> All right. Good. Great. Thank you for that. Now you mentioned earlier that you were somewhat surprised, not surprised that you got customers migrating from on-prem databases, but you also saw migration from other clouds. How do you expect the trend with regard to this new announcement? Do you have any sense as to how that's going to go? >> Right. So one of the big changes from December to now is that we have now focused quite a bit on mixed workloads. So in the past, in December, when we first went out, HeatWave was designed primarily for analytics. Now, what we have found is that there's a very large class of customers who have mixed workloads and who also have smaller data sizes. We now have introduced a lot of technology, including things like auto scheduling, definitely improvement in performance, where MySQL HeatWave is a very superior solution compared to Aurora or other databases out there, both in terms of performance as well as price for these mixed workloads and better latency, better throughput, lower costs. So we expect this trend of migration to MySQL HeatWave, to accelerate. So we are seeing customers migrate from Azure. We are seeing customers migrate from GCP and by far the number one migrations we are seeing are from AWS. So I think based on the new features and technologies, we have announced today, this migration is going to accelerate. >> All right, last question. So I said earlier, it's, it's, it seems like you're applying what are generally well understood and proven technologies, like in-memory, you like clustering to solve these problems. And I think about, you know, the, the things that you're doing, and I wonder, you know, I mean, these things have been around for awhile and why has this type of approach not been introduced by others previously? >> Right. Well, so the main thing is it takes time, right? That we designed HeatWave from the ground up for the cloud. And as a part of that, we had to invent new algorithms for distributed query processing for the cloud. We put in the hooks for machine learning processes. We're sealing processing right from the ground up. So this has taken us close to a decade. It's been hundreds of person-years of investment, dozens of patents which have gone in. Another aspect is it takes talent from different areas. So we have like, you know, people working in distributed query processing, we have people who have a lot of like background in machine learning. And then given that we are like the custodians of the MySQL database, we have a very rich set of customers we can reach out to, to get feedback from them as to what are the pinpoints. So culmination of these trends, which we have this talent, the customer base and the time, so we spent almost close to a decade to make this thing work. So that's what it takes. It takes time, patience, patience, and talent. >> A lot of software innovation bringing together, as I said, that hardware and software strategy. Very interesting. Nipun, thanks so much. I appreciate your, your insights and coming on this video exclusive. >> Thank you, Dave. Thank you for the opportunity. >> My pleasure. And thank you for watching everybody. This is Dave Vellante for theCUBE. We'll see you next time. (bright music)

(bright music) >> Hi, everybody, this is Dave Vellante, welcome back to Supercloud 2. Last August, at the first Supercloud event, we invited the broader community to help further define Supercloud, we assessed its viability, and identified the critical elements and deployment models of the concept. The objectives here at Supercloud too are, first of all, to continue to tighten and test the concept, the second is, we want to get real world input from practitioners on the problems that they're facing and the viability of Supercloud in terms of applying it to their business. So on the program, we got companies like Walmart, Sachs, Western Union, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, NASDAQ, and others. And the third thing that we want to do is we want to drill into the intersection of cloud and data to project what the future looks like in the context of Supercloud. So in this segment, we want to explore the concept of data architectures and what's going to be required for Supercloud. And I'm pleased to welcome one of our Supercloud sponsors, ChaosSearch, Ed Walsh is the CEO of the company, with Thomas Hazel, who's the Founder, CTO, and Chief Scientist. Guys, good to see you again, thanks for coming into our Marlborough studio. >> Always great. >> Great to be here. >> Okay, so there's a little debate, I'm going to put you right in the spot. (Ed chuckling) A little debate going on in the community started by Bob Muglia, a former CEO of Snowflake, and he was at Microsoft for a long time, and he looked at the Supercloud definition, said, "I think you need to tighten it up a little bit." So, here's what he came up with. He said, "A Supercloud is a platform that provides a programmatically consistent set of services hosted on heterogeneous cloud providers." So he's calling it a platform, not an architecture, which was kind of interesting. And so presumably the platform owner is going to be responsible for the architecture, but Dr. Nelu Mihai, who's a computer scientist behind the Cloud of Clouds Project, he chimed in and responded with the following. He said, "Cloud is a programming paradigm supporting the entire lifecycle of applications with data and logic natively distributed. Supercloud is an open architecture that integrates heterogeneous clouds in an agnostic manner." So, Ed, words matter. Is this an architecture or is it a platform? >> Put us on the spot. So, I'm sure you have concepts, I would say it's an architectural or design principle. Listen, I look at Supercloud as a mega trend, just like cloud, just like data analytics. And some companies are using the principle, design principles, to literally get dramatically ahead of everyone else. I mean, things you couldn't possibly do if you didn't use cloud principles, right? So I think it's a Supercloud effect, you're able to do things you're not able to. So I think it's more a design principle, but if you do it right, you get dramatic effect as far as customer value. >> So the conversation that we were having with Muglia, and Tristan Handy of dbt Labs, was, I'll set it up as the following, and, Thomas, would love to get your thoughts, if you have a CRM, think about applications today, it's all about forms and codifying business processes, you type a bunch of stuff into Salesforce, and all the salespeople do it, and this machine generates a forecast. What if you have this new type of data app that pulls data from the transaction system, the e-commerce, the supply chain, the partner ecosystem, et cetera, and then, without humans, actually comes up with a plan. That's their vision. And Muglia was saying, in order to do that, you need to rethink data architectures and database architectures specifically, you need to get down to the level of how the data is stored on the disc. What are your thoughts on that? Well, first of all, I'm going to cop out, I think it's actually both. I do think it's a design principle, I think it's not open technology, but open APIs, open access, and you can build a platform on that design principle architecture. Now, I'm a database person, I love solving the database problems. >> I'm waited for you to launch into this. >> Yeah, so I mean, you know, Snowflake is a database, right? It's a distributed database. And we wanted to crack those codes, because, multi-region, multi-cloud, customers wanted access to their data, and their data is in a variety of forms, all these services that you're talked about. And so what I saw as a core principle was cloud object storage, everyone streams their data to cloud object storage. From there we said, well, how about we rethink database architecture, rethink file format, so that we can take each one of these services and bring them together, whether distributively or centrally, such that customers can access and get answers, whether it's operational data, whether it's business data, AKA search, or SQL, complex distributed joins. But we had to rethink the architecture. I like to say we're not a first generation, or a second, we're a third generation distributed database on pure, pure cloud storage, no caching, no SSDs. Why? Because all that availability, the cost of time, is a struggle, and cloud object storage, we think, is the answer. >> So when you're saying no caching, so when I think about how companies are solving some, you know, pretty hairy problems, take MySQL Heatwave, everybody thought Oracle was going to just forget about MySQL, well, they come out with Heatwave. And the way they solve problems, and you see their benchmarks against Amazon, "Oh, we crush everybody," is they put it all in memory. So you said no caching? You're not getting performance through caching? How is that true, and how are you getting performance? >> Well, so five, six years ago, right? When you realize that cloud object storage is going to be everywhere, and it's going to be a core foundational, if you will, fabric, what would you do? Well, a lot of times the second generation say, "We'll take it out of cloud storage, put in SSDs or something, and put into cache." And that adds a lot of time, adds a lot of costs. But I said, what if, what if we could actually make the first read hot, the first read distributed joins and searching? And so what we went out to do was said, we can't cache, because that's adds time, that adds cost. We have to make cloud object storage high performance, like it feels like a caching SSD. That's where our patents are, that's where our technology is, and we've spent many years working towards this. So, to me, if you can crack that code, a lot of these issues we're talking about, multi-region, multicloud, different services, everybody wants to send their data to the data lake, but then they move it out, we said, "Keep it right there." >> You nailed it, the data gravity. So, Bob's right, the data's coming in, and you need to get the data from everywhere, but you need an environment that you can deal with all that different schema, all the different type of technology, but also at scale. Bob's right, you cannot use memory or SSDs to cache that, that doesn't scale, it doesn't scale cost effectively. But if you could, and what you did, is you made object storage, S3 first, but object storage, the only persistence by doing that. And then we get performance, we should talk about it, it's literally, you know, hundreds of terabytes of queries, and it's done in seconds, it's done without memory caching. We have concepts of caching, but the only caching, the only persistence, is actually when we're doing caching, we're just keeping another side-eye track of things on the S3 itself. So we're using, actually, the object storage to be a database, which is kind of where Bob was saying, we agree, but that's what you started at, people thought you were crazy. >> And maybe make it live. Don't think of it as archival or temporary space, make it live, real time streaming, operational data. What we do is make it smart, we see the data coming in, we uniquely index it such that you can get your use cases, that are search, observability, security, or backend operational. But we don't have to have this, I dunno, static, fixed, siloed type of architecture technologies that were traditionally built prior to Supercloud thinking. >> And you don't have to move everything, essentially, you can do it wherever the data lands, whatever cloud across the globe, you're able to bring it together, you get the cost effectiveness, because the only persistence is the cheapest storage persistent layer you can buy. But the key thing is you cracked the code. >> We had to crack the code, right? That was the key thing. >> That's where the plans are. >> And then once you do that, then everything else gets easier to scale, your architecture, across regions, across cloud. >> Now, it's a general purpose database, as Bob was saying, but we use that database to solve a particular issue, which is around operational data, right? So, we agree with Bob's. >> Interesting. So this brings me to this concept of data, Jimata Gan is one of our speakers, you know, we talk about data fabric, which is a NetApp, originally NetApp concept, Gartner's kind of co-opted it. But so, the basic concept is, data lives everywhere, whether it's an S3 bucket, or a SQL database, or a data lake, it's just a node on the data mesh. So in your view, how does this fit in with Supercloud? Ed, you've said that you've built, essentially, an enabler for that, for the data mesh, I think you're an enabler for the Supercloud-like principles. This is a big, chewy opportunity, and it requires, you know, a team approach. There's got to be an ecosystem, there's not going to be one Supercloud to rule them all, so where does the ecosystem fit into the discussion, and where do you fit into the ecosystem? >> Right, so we agree completely, there's not one Supercloud in effect, but we use Supercloud principles to build our platform, and then, you know, the ecosystem's going to be built on leveraging what everyone else's secret powers are, right? So our power, our superpower, based upon what we built is, we deal with, if you're having any scale, or cost effective scale issues, with data, machine generated data, like business observability or security data, we are your force multiplier, we will take that in singularly, just let it, simply put it in your object storage wherever it sits, and we give you uniformity access to that using OpenAPI access, SQL, or you know, Elasticsearch API. So, that's what we do, that's our superpower. So I'll play it into data mesh, that's a perfect, we are a node on a data mesh, but I'll play it in the soup about how, the ecosystem, we see it kind of playing, and we talked about it in just in the last couple days, how we see this kind of possibly. Short term, our superpowers, we deal with this data that's coming at these environments, people, customers, building out observability or security environments, or vendors that are selling their own Supercloud, I do observability, the Datadogs of the world, dot dot dot, the Splunks of the world, dot dot dot, and security. So what we do is we fit in naturally. What we do is a cost effective scale, just land it anywhere in the world, we deal with ingest, and it's a cost effective, an order of magnitude, or two or three order magnitudes more cost effective. Allows them, their customers are asking them to do the impossible, "Give me fast monitoring alerting. I want it snappy, but I want it to keep two years of data, (laughs) and I want it cost effective." It doesn't work. They're good at the fast monitoring alerting, we're good at the long-term retention. And yet there's some gray area between those two, but one to one is actually cheaper, so we would partner. So the first ecosystem plays, who wants to have the ability to, really, all the data's in those same environments, the security observability players, they can literally, just through API, drag our data into their point to grab. We can make it seamless for customers. Right now, we make it helpful to customers. Your Datadog, we make a button, easy go from Datadog to us for logs, save you money. Same thing with Grafana. But you can also look at ecosystem, those same vendors, it used to be a year ago it was, you know, its all about how can you grow, like it's growth at all costs, now it's about cogs. So literally we can go an environment, you supply what your customer wants, but we can help with cogs. And one-on one in a partnership is better than you trying to build on your own. >> Thomas, you were saying you make the first read fast, so you think about Snowflake. Everybody wants to talk about Snowflake and Databricks. So, Snowflake, great, but you got to get the data in there. All right, so that's, can you help with that problem? >> I mean we want simple in, right? And if you have to have structure in, you're not simple. So the idea that you have a simple in, data lake, schema read type philosophy, but schema right type performance. And so what I wanted to do, what we have done, is have that simple lake, and stream that data real time, and those access points of Search or SQL, to go after whatever business case you need, security observability, warehouse integration. But the key thing is, how do I make that click, click, click answer, and do it quickly? And so what we want to do is, that first read has to be fast. Why? 'Cause then you're going to do all this siloing, layers, complexity. If your first read's not fast, you're at a disadvantage, particularly in cost. And nobody says I want less data, but everyone has to, whether they say we're going to shorten the window, we're going to use AI to choose, but in a security moment, when you don't have that answer, you're in trouble. And that's why we are this service, this Supercloud service, if you will, providing access, well-known search, well-known SQL type access, that if you just have one access point, you're at a disadvantage. >> We actually talked about Snowflake and BigQuery, and a different platform, Data Bricks. That's kind of where we see the phase two of ecosystem. One is easy, the low-hanging fruit is observability and security firms. But the next one is, what we do, our super power is dealing with this messy data that schema is changing like night and day. Pipelines are tough, and it's changing all the time, but you want these things fast, and it's big data around the world. That's the next point, just use us alongside, or inside, one of their platforms, and now we get the best of both worlds. Our superpower is keeping this messy data as a streaming, okay, not a batch thing, allow you to do that. So, that's the second one. And then to be honest, the third one, which plays you to Supercloud, it also plays perfectly in the data mesh, is if you really go to the ultimate thing, what we have done is made object storage, S3, GCS, and blob storage, we made it a database. Put, get, complex query with big joins. You know, so back to your original thing, and Muglia teed it up perfectly, we've done that. Now imagine if that's an ecosystem, who would want that? If it's, again, it's uniform available across all the regions, across all the clouds, and it's right next to where you are building a service, or a client's trying, that's where the ecosystem, I think people are going to use Superclouds for their superpowers. We're really good at this, allows that short term. I think the Snowflakes and the Data Bricks are the medium term, you know? And then I think eventually gets to, hey, listen if you can make object storage fast, you can just go after it with simple SQL queries, or elastic. Who would want that? I think that's where people are going to leverage it. It's not going to be one Supercloud, and we leverage the super clouds. >> Our viewpoint is smart object storage can be programmable, and so we agree with Bob, but we're not saying do it here, do it here. This core, fundamental layer across regions, across clouds, that everyone has? Simple in. Right now, it's hard to get data in for access for analysis. So we said, simply, we'll automate the entire process, give you API access across regions, across clouds. And again, how do you do a distributed join that's fast? How do you do a distributed join that doesn't cost you an arm or a leg? And how do you do it at scale? And that's where we've been focused. >> So prior, the cloud object store was a niche. >> Yeah. >> S3 obviously changed that. How standard is, essentially, object store across the different cloud platforms? Is that a problem for you? Is that an easy thing to solve? >> Well, let's talk about it. I mean we've fundamentally, yeah we've extracted it, but fundamentally, cloud object storage, put, get, and list. That's why it's so scalable, 'cause it doesn't have all these other components. That complexity is where we have moved up, and provide direct analytical API access. So because of its simplicity, and costs, and security, and reliability, it can scale naturally. I mean, really, distributed object storage is easy, it's put-get anywhere, now what we've done is we put a layer of intelligence, you know, call it smart object storage, where access is simple. So whether it's multi-region, do a query across, or multicloud, do a query across, or hunting, searching. >> We've had clients doing Amazon and Google, we have some Azure, but we see Amazon and Google more, and it's a consistent service across all of them. Just literally put your data in the bucket of choice, or folder of choice, click a couple buttons, literally click that to say "that's hot," and after that, it's hot, you can see it. But we're not moving data, the data gravity issue, that's the other. That it's already natively flowing to these pools of object storage across different regions and clouds. We don't move it, we index it right there, we're spinning up stateless compute, back to the Supercloud concept. But now that allows us to do all these other things, right? >> And it's no longer just cheap and deep object storage. Right? >> Yeah, we make it the same, like you have an analytic platform regardless of where you're at, you don't have to worry about that. Yeah, we deal with that, we deal with a stateless compute coming up -- >> And make it programmable. Be able to say, "I want this bucket to provide these answers." Right, that's really the hope, the vision. And the complexity to build the entire stack, and then connect them together, we said, the fabric is cloud storage, we just provide the intelligence on top. >> Let's bring it back to the customers, and one of the things we're exploring in Supercloud too is, you know, is Supercloud a solution looking for a problem? Is a multicloud really a problem? I mean, you hear, you know, a lot of the vendor marketing says, "Oh, it's a disaster, because it's all different across the clouds." And I talked to a lot of customers even as part of Supercloud too, they're like, "Well, I solved that problem by just going mono cloud." Well, but then you're not able to take advantage of a lot of the capabilities and the primitives that, you know, like Google's data, or you like Microsoft's simplicity, their RPA, whatever it is. So what are customers telling you, what are their near term problems that they're trying to solve today, and how are they thinking about the future? >> Listen, it's a real problem. I think it started, I think this is a a mega trend, just like cloud. Just, cloud data, and I always add, analytics, are the mega trends. If you're looking at those, if you're not considering using the Supercloud principles, in other words, leveraging what I have, abstracting it out, and getting the most out of that, and then build value on top, I think you're not going to be able to keep up, In fact, no way you're going to keep up with this data volume. It's a geometric challenge, and you're trying to do linear things. So clients aren't necessarily asking, hey, for Supercloud, but they're really saying, I need to have a better mechanism to simplify this and get value across it, and how do you abstract that out to do that? And that's where they're obviously, our conversations are more amazed what we're able to do, and what they're able to do with our platform, because if you think of what we've done, the S3, or GCS, or object storage, is they can't imagine the ingest, they can't imagine how easy, time to glass, one minute, no matter where it lands in the world, querying this in seconds for hundreds of terabytes squared. People are amazed, but that's kind of, so they're not asking for that, but they are amazed. And then when you start talking on it, if you're an enterprise person, you're building a big cloud data platform, or doing data or analytics, if you're not trying to leverage the public clouds, and somehow leverage all of them, and then build on top, then I think you're missing it. So they might not be asking for it, but they're doing it. >> And they're looking for a lens, you mentioned all these different services, how do I bring those together quickly? You know, our viewpoint, our service, is I have all these streams of data, create a lens where they want to go after it via search, go after via SQL, bring them together instantly, no e-tailing out, no define this table, put into this database. We said, let's have a service that creates a lens across all these streams, and then make those connections. I want to take my CRM with my Google AdWords, and maybe my Salesforce, how do I do analysis? Maybe I want to hunt first, maybe I want to join, maybe I want to add another stream to it. And so our viewpoint is, it's so natural to get into these lake platforms and then provide lenses to get that access. >> And they don't want it separate, they don't want something different here, and different there. They want it basically -- >> So this is our industry, right? If something new comes out, remember virtualization came out, "Oh my God, this is so great, it's going to solve all these problems." And all of a sudden it just got to be this big, more complex thing. Same thing with cloud, you know? It started out with S3, and then EC2, and now hundreds and hundreds of different services. So, it's a complex matter for a lot of people, and this creates problems for customers, especially when you got divisions that are using different clouds, and you're saying that the solution, or a solution for the part of the problem, is to really allow the data to stay in place on S3, use that standard, super simple, but then give it what, Ed, you've called superpower a couple of times, to make it fast, make it inexpensive, and allow you to do that across clouds. >> Yeah, yeah. >> I'll give you guys the last word on that. >> No, listen, I think, we think Supercloud allows you to do a lot more. And for us, data, everyone says more data, more problems, more budget issue, everyone knows more data is better, and we show you how to do it cost effectively at scale. And we couldn't have done it without the design principles of we're leveraging the Supercloud to get capabilities, and because we use super, just the object storage, we're able to get these capabilities of ingest, scale, cost effectiveness, and then we built on top of this. In the end, a database is a data platform that allows you to go after everything distributed, and to get one platform for analytics, no matter where it lands, that's where we think the Supercloud concepts are perfect, that's where our clients are seeing it, and we're kind of excited about it. >> Yeah a third generation database, Supercloud database, however we want to phrase it, and make it simple, but provide the value, and make it instant. >> Guys, thanks so much for coming into the studio today, I really thank you for your support of theCUBE, and theCUBE community, it allows us to provide events like this and free content. I really appreciate it. >> Oh, thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right, this is Dave Vellante for John Furrier in theCUBE community, thanks for being with us today. You're watching Supercloud 2, keep it right there for more thought provoking discussions around the future of cloud and data. (bright music)

(gentle music playing) >> For centuries, we've been captivated by the concept of machines doing the job of humans. And over the past decade or so, we've really focused on AI and the possibility of intelligent machines that can perform cognitive tasks. Now in the past few years, with the popularity of machine learning models ranging from recent ChatGPT to Bert, we're starting to see how AI is changing the way we interact with the world. How is AI transforming the way we do business? And what does the future hold for us there. At theCube, we've covered Oracle's AI and ML strategy for years, which has really been used to drive automation into Oracle's autonomous database. We've talked a lot about MySQL HeatWave in database machine learning, and AI pushed into Oracle's business apps. Oracle, it tends to lead in AI, but not competing as a direct AI player per se, but rather embedding AI and machine learning into its portfolio to enhance its existing products, and bring new services and offerings to the market. Now, last October at Cloud World in Las Vegas, Oracle partnered with Nvidia, which is the go-to AI silicon provider for vendors. And they announced an investment, a pretty significant investment to deploy tens of thousands more Nvidia GPUs to OCI, the Oracle Cloud Infrastructure and build out Oracle's infrastructure for enterprise scale AI. Now, Oracle CEO, Safra Catz said something to the effect of this alliance is going to help customers across industries from healthcare, manufacturing, telecoms, and financial services to overcome the multitude of challenges they face. Presumably she was talking about just driving more automation and more productivity. Now, to learn more about Oracle's plans for AI, we'd like to welcome in Elad Ziklik, who's the vice president of AI services at Oracle. Elad, great to see you. Welcome to the show. >> Thank you. Thanks for having me. >> You're very welcome. So first let's talk about Oracle's path to AI. I mean, it's the hottest topic going for years you've been incorporating machine learning into your products and services, you know, could you tell us what you've been working on, how you got here? >> So great question. So as you mentioned, I think most of the original four-way into AI was on embedding AI and using AI to make our applications, and databases better. So inside mySQL HeatWave, inside our autonomous database in power, we've been driving AI, all of course are SaaS apps. So Fusion, our large enterprise business suite for HR applications and CRM and ELP, and whatnot has built in AI inside it. Most recently, NetSuite, our small medium business SaaS suite started using AI for things like automated invoice processing and whatnot. And most recently, over the last, I would say two years, we've started exposing and bringing these capabilities into the broader OCI Oracle Cloud infrastructure. So the developers, and ISVs and customers can start using our AI capabilities to make their apps better and their experiences and business workflow better, and not just consume these as embedded inside Oracle. And this recent partnership that you mentioned with Nvidia is another step in bringing the best AI infrastructure capabilities into this platform so you can actually build any type of machine learning workflow or AI model that you want on Oracle Cloud. >> So when I look at the market, I see companies out there like DataRobot or C3 AI, there's maybe a half dozen that sort of pop up on my radar anyway. And my premise has always been that most customers, they don't want to become AI experts, they want to buy applications and have AI embedded or they want AI to manage their infrastructure. So my question to you is, how does Oracle help its OCI customers support their business with AI? >> So it's a great question. So I think what most customers want is business AI. They want AI that works for the business. They want AI that works for the enterprise. I call it the last mile of AI. And they want this thing to work. The majority of them don't want to hire a large and expensive data science teams to go and build everything from scratch. They just want the business problem solved by applying AI to it. My best analogy is Lego. So if you think of Lego, Lego has these millions Lego blocks that you can use to build anything that you want. But the majority of people like me or like my kids, they want the Lego death style kit or the Lego Eiffel Tower thing. They want a thing that just works, and it's very easy to use. And still Lego blocks, you still need to build some things together, which just works for the scenario that you're looking for. So that's our focus. Our focus is making it easy for customers to apply AI where they need to, in the right business context. So whether it's embedding it inside the business applications, like adding forecasting capabilities to your supply chain management or financial planning software, whether it's adding chat bots into the line of business applications, integrating these things into your analytics dashboard, even all the way to, we have a new platform piece we call ML applications that allows you to take a machine learning model, and scale it for the thousands of tenants that you would be. 'Cause this is a big problem for most of the ML use cases. It's very easy to build something for a proof of concept or a pilot or a demo. But then if you need to take this and then deploy it across your thousands of customers or your thousands of regions or facilities, then it becomes messy. So this is where we spend our time making it easy to take these things into production in the context of your business application or your business use case that you're interested in right now. >> So you mentioned chat bots, and I want to talk about ChatGPT, but my question here is different, we'll talk about that in a minute. So when you think about these chat bots, the ones that are conversational, my experience anyway is they're just meh, they're not that great. But the ones that actually work pretty well, they have a conditioned response. Now they're limited, but they say, which of the following is your problem? And then if that's one of the following is your problem, you can maybe solve your problem. But this is clearly a trend and it helps the line of business. How does Oracle think about these use cases for your customers? >> Yeah, so I think the key here is exactly what you said. It's about task completion. The general purpose bots are interesting, but as you said, like are still limited. They're getting much better, I'm sure we'll talk about ChatGPT. But I think what most enterprises want is around task completion. I want to automate my expense report processing. So today inside Oracle we have a chat bot where I submit my expenses the bot ask a couple of question, I answer them, and then I'm done. Like I don't need to go to our fancy application, and manually submit an expense report. I do this via Slack. And the key is around managing the right expectations of what this thing is capable of doing. Like, I have a story from I think five, six years ago when technology was much inferior than it is today. Well, one of the telco providers I was working with wanted to roll a chat bot that does realtime translation. So it was for a support center for of the call centers. And what they wanted do is, Hey, we have English speaking employees, whatever, 24/7, if somebody's calling, and the native tongue is different like Hebrew in my case, or Chinese or whatnot, then we'll give them a chat bot that they will interact with and will translate this on the fly and everything would work. And when they rolled it out, the feedback from customers was horrendous. Customers said, the technology sucks. It's not good. I hate it, I hate your company, I hate your support. And what they've done is they've changed the narrative. Instead of, you go to a support center, and you assume you're going to talk to a human, and instead you get a crappy chat bot, they're like, Hey, if you want to talk to a Hebrew speaking person, there's a four hour wait, please leave your phone and we'll call you back. Or you can try a new amazing Hebrew speaking AI powered bot and it may help your use case. Do you want to try it out? And some people said, yeah, let's try it out. Plus one to try it out. And the feedback, even though it was the exact same technology was amazing. People were like, oh my God, this is so innovative, this is great. Even though it was the exact same experience that they hated a few weeks earlier on. So I think the key lesson that I picked from this experience is it's all about setting the right expectations, and working around the right use case. If you are replacing a human, the level is different than if you are just helping or augmenting something that otherwise would take a lot of time. And I think this is the focus that we are doing, picking up the tasks that people want to accomplish or that enterprise want to accomplish for the customers, for the employees. And using chat bots to make those specific ones better rather than, hey, this is going to replace all humans everywhere, and just be better than that. >> Yeah, I mean, to the point you mentioned expense reports. I'm in a Twitter thread and one guy says, my favorite part of business travel is filling out expense reports. It's an hour of excitement to figure out which receipts won't scan. We can all relate to that. It's just the worst. When you think about companies that are building custom AI driven apps, what can they do on OCI? What are the best options for them? Do they need to hire an army of machine intelligence experts and AI specialists? Help us understand your point of view there. >> So over the last, I would say the two or three years we've developed a full suite of machine learning and AI services for, I would say probably much every use case that you would expect right now from applying natural language processing to understanding customer support tickets or social media, or whatnot to computer vision platforms or computer vision services that can understand and detect objects, and count objects on shelves or detect cracks in the pipe or defecting parts, all the way to speech services. It can actually transcribe human speech. And most recently we've launched a new document AI service. That can actually look at unstructured documents like receipts or invoices or government IDs or even proprietary documents, loan application, student application forms, patient ingestion and whatnot and completely automate them using AI. So if you want to do one of the things that are, I would say common bread and butter for any industry, whether it's financial services or healthcare or manufacturing, we have a suite of services that any developer can go, and use easily customized with their own data. You don't need to be an expert in deep learning or large language models. You could just use our automobile capabilities, and build your own version of the models. Just go ahead and use them. And if you do have proprietary complex scenarios that you need customer from scratch, we actually have the most cost effective platform for that. So we have the OCI data science as well as built-in machine learning platform inside the databases inside the Oracle database, and mySQL HeatWave that allow data scientists, python welding people that actually like to build and tweak and control and improve, have everything that they need to go and build the machine learning models from scratch, deploy them, monitor and manage them at scale in production environment. And most of it is brand new. So we did not have these technologies four or five years ago and we've started building them and they're now at enterprise scale over the last couple of years. >> So what are some of the state-of-the-art tools, that AI specialists and data scientists need if they're going to go out and develop these new models? >> So I think it's on three layers. I think there's an infrastructure layer where the Nvidia's of the world come into play. For some of these things, you want massively efficient, massively scaled infrastructure place. So we are the most cost effective and performant large scale GPU training environment today. We're going to be first to onboard the new Nvidia H100s. These are the new super powerful GPU's for large language model training. So we have that covered for you in case you need this 'cause you want to build these ginormous things. You need a data science platform, a platform where you can open a Python notebook, and just use all these fancy open source frameworks and create the models that you want, and then click on a button and deploy it. And it infinitely scales wherever you need it. And in many cases you just need the, what I call the applied AI services. You need the Lego sets, the Lego death style, Lego Eiffel Tower. So we have a suite of these sets for typical scenarios, whether it's cognitive services of like, again, understanding images, or documents all the way to solving particular business problems. So an anomaly detection service, demand focusing service that will be the equivalent of these Lego sets. So if this is the business problem that you're looking to solve, we have services out there where we can bring your data, call an API, train a model, get the model and use it in your production environment. So wherever you want to play, all the way into embedding this thing, inside this applications, obviously, wherever you want to play, we have the tools for you to go and engage from infrastructure to SaaS at the top, and everything in the middle. >> So when you think about the data pipeline, and the data life cycle, and the specialized roles that came out of kind of the (indistinct) era if you will. I want to focus on two developers and data scientists. So the developers, they hate dealing with infrastructure and they got to deal with infrastructure. Now they're being asked to secure the infrastructure, they just want to write code. And a data scientist, they're spending all their time trying to figure out, okay, what's the data quality? And they're wrangling data and they don't spend enough time doing what they want to do. So there's been a lack of collaboration. Have you seen that change, are these approaches allowing collaboration between data scientists and developers on a single platform? Can you talk about that a little bit? >> Yeah, that is a great question. One of the biggest set of scars that I have on my back from for building these platforms in other companies is exactly that. Every persona had a set of tools, and these tools didn't talk to each other and the handoff was painful. And most of the machine learning things evaporate or die on the floor because of this problem. It's very rarely that they are unsuccessful because the algorithm wasn't good enough. In most cases it's somebody builds something, and then you can't take it to production, you can't integrate it into your business application. You can't take the data out, train, create an endpoint and integrate it back like it's too painful. So the way we are approaching this is focused on this problem exactly. We have a single set of tools that if you publish a model as a data scientist and developers, and even business analysts that are seeing a inside of business application could be able to consume it. We have a single model store, a single feature store, a single management experience across the various personas that need to play in this. And we spend a lot of time building, and borrowing a word that cellular folks used, and I really liked it, building inside highways to make it easier to bring these insights into where you need them inside applications, both inside our applications, inside our SaaS applications, but also inside custom third party and even first party applications. And this is where a lot of our focus goes to just because we have dealt with so much pain doing this inside our own SaaS that we now have built the tools, and we're making them available for others to make this process of building a machine learning outcome driven insight in your app easier. And it's not just the model development, and it's not just the deployment, it's the entire journey of taking the data, building the model, training it, deploying it, looking at the real data that comes from the app, and creating this feedback loop in a more efficient way. And that's our focus area. Exactly this problem. >> Well thank you for that. So, last week we had our super cloud two event, and I had Juan Loza on and he spent a lot of time talking about how open Oracle is in its philosophy, and I got a lot of feedback. They were like, Oracle open, I don't really think, but the truth is if you think about database Oracle database, it never met a hardware platform that it didn't like. So in that sense it's open. So, but my point is, a big part of of machine learning and AI is driven by open source tools, frameworks, what's your open source strategy? What do you support from an open source standpoint? >> So I'm a strong believer that you don't actually know, nobody knows where the next slip fog or the next industry shifting innovation in AI is going to come from. If you look six months ago, nobody foreseen Dali, the magical text to image generation and the exploding brought into just art and design type of experiences. If you look six weeks ago, I don't think anybody's seen ChatGPT, and what it can do for a whole bunch of industries. So to me, assuming that a customer or partner or developer would want to lock themselves into only the tools that a specific vendor can produce is ridiculous. 'Cause nobody knows, if anybody claims that they know where the innovation is going to come from in a year or two, let alone in five or 10, they're just wrong or lying. So our strategy for Oracle is to, I call this the Netflix of AI. So if you think about Netflix, they produced a bunch of high quality shows on their own. A few years ago it was House of Cards. Last month my wife and I binge watched Ginny and Georgie, but they also curated a lot of shows that they found around the world and bought them to their customers. So it started with things like Seinfeld or Friends and most recently it was Squid games and those are famous Israeli TV series called Founder that Netflix bought in, and they bought it as is and they gave it the Netflix value. So you have captioning and you have the ability to speed the movie and you have it inside your app, and you can download it and watch it offline and everything, but nobody Netflix was involved in the production of these first seasons. Now if these things hunt and they're great, then the third season or the fourth season will get the full Netflix production value, high value budget, high value location shooting or whatever. But you as a customer, you don't care whether the producer and director, and screenplay writing is a Netflix employee or is somebody else's employee. It is fulfilled by Netflix. I believe that we will become, or we are looking to become the Netflix of AI. We are building a bunch of AI in a bunch of places where we think it's important and we have some competitive advantage like healthcare with Acellular partnership or whatnot. But I want to bring the best AI software and hardware to OCI and do a fulfillment by Oracle on that. So you'll get the Oracle security and identity and single bill and everything you'd expect from a company like Oracle. But we don't have to be building the data science, and the models for everything. So this means both open source recently announced a partnership with Anaconda, the leading provider of Python distribution in the data science ecosystem where we are are doing a joint strategic partnership of bringing all the goodness into Oracle customers as well as in the process of doing the same with Nvidia, and all those software libraries, not just the Hubble, both for other stuff like Triton, but also for healthcare specific stuff as well as other ISVs, other AI leading ISVs that we are in the process of partnering with to get their stuff into OCI and into Oracle so that you can truly consume the best AI hardware, and the best AI software in the world on Oracle. 'Cause that is what I believe our customers would want the ability to choose from any open source engine, and honestly from any ISV type of solution that is AI powered and they want to use it in their experiences. >> So you mentioned ChatGPT, I want to talk about some of the innovations that are coming. As an AI expert, you see ChatGPT on the one hand, I'm sure you weren't surprised. On the other hand, maybe the reaction in the market, and the hype is somewhat surprising. You know, they say that we tend to under or over-hype things in the early stages and under hype them long term, you kind of use the internet as example. What's your take on that premise? >> So. I think that this type of technology is going to be an inflection point in how software is being developed. I truly believe this. I think this is an internet style moment, and the way software interfaces, software applications are being developed will dramatically change over the next year two or three because of this type of technologies. I think there will be industries that will be shifted. I think education is a good example. I saw this thing opened on my son's laptop. So I think education is going to be transformed. Design industry like images or whatever, it's already been transformed. But I think that for mass adoption, like beyond the hype, beyond the peak of inflected expectations, if I'm using Gartner terminology, I think certain things need to go and happen. One is this thing needs to become more reliable. So right now it is a complete black box that sometimes produce magic, and sometimes produce just nonsense. And it needs to have better explainability and better lineage to, how did you get to this answer? 'Cause I think enterprises are going to really care about the things that they surface with the customers or use internally. So I think that is one thing that's going to come out. And the other thing that's going to come out is I think it's going to come industry specific large language models or industry specific ChatGPTs. Something like how OpenAI did co-pilot for writing code. I think we will start seeing this type of apps solving for specific business problems, understanding contracts, understanding healthcare, writing doctor's notes on behalf of doctors so they don't have to spend time manually recording and analyzing conversations. And I think that would become the sweet spot of this thing. There will be companies, whether it's OpenAI or Microsoft or Google or hopefully Oracle that will use this type of technology to solve for specific very high value business needs. And I think this will change how interfaces happen. So going back to your expense report, the world of, I'm going to go into an app, and I'm going to click on seven buttons in order to get some job done like this world is gone. Like I'm going to say, hey, please do this and that. And I expect an answer to come out. I've seen a recent demo about, marketing in sales. So a customer sends an email that is interested in something and then a ChatGPT powered thing just produces the answer. I think this is how the world is going to evolve. Like yes, there's a ton of hype, yes, it looks like magic and right now it is magic, but it's not yet productive for most enterprise scenarios. But in the next 6, 12, 24 months, this will start getting more dependable, and it's going to change how these industries are being managed. Like I think it's an internet level revolution. That's my take. >> It's very interesting. And it's going to change the way in which we have. Instead of accessing the data center through APIs, we're going to access it through natural language processing and that opens up technology to a huge audience. Last question, is a two part question. And the first part is what you guys are working on from the futures, but the second part of the question is, we got data scientists and developers in our audience. They love the new shiny toy. So give us a little glimpse of what you're working on in the future, and what would you say to them to persuade them to check out Oracle's AI services? >> Yep. So I think there's two main things that we're doing, one is around healthcare. With a new recent acquisition, we are spending a significant effort around revolutionizing healthcare with AI. Of course many scenarios from patient care using computer vision and cameras through automating, and making better insurance claims to research and pharma. We are making the best models from leading organizations, and internal available for hospitals and researchers, and insurance providers everywhere. And we truly are looking to become the leader in AI for healthcare. So I think that's a huge focus area. And the second part is, again, going back to the enterprise AI angle. Like we want to, if you have a business problem that you want to apply here to solve, we want to be your platform. Like you could use others if you want to build everything complicated and whatnot. We have a platform for that as well. But like, if you want to apply AI to solve a business problem, we want to be your platform. We want to be the, again, the Netflix of AI kind of a thing where we are the place for the greatest AI innovations accessible to any developer, any business analyst, any user, any data scientist on Oracle Cloud. And we're making a significant effort on these two fronts as well as developing a lot of the missing pieces, and building blocks that we see are needed in this space to make truly like a great experience for developers and data scientists. And what would I recommend? Get started, try it out. We actually have a shameless sales plug here. We have a free deal for all of our AI services. So it typically cost you nothing. I would highly recommend to just go, and try these things out. Go play with it. If you are a python welding developer, and you want to try a little bit of auto mail, go down that path. If you're not even there and you're just like, hey, I have these customer feedback things and I want to try out, if I can understand them and apply AI and visualize, and do some cool stuff, we have services for that. My recommendation is, and I think ChatGPT got us 'cause I see people that have nothing to do with AI, and can't even spell AI going and trying it out. I think this is the time. Go play with these things, go play with these technologies and find what AI can do to you or for you. And I think Oracle is a great place to start playing with these things. >> Elad, thank you. Appreciate you sharing your vision of making Oracle the Netflix of AI. Love that and really appreciate your time. >> Awesome. Thank you. Thank you for having me. >> Okay. Thanks for watching this Cube conversation. This is Dave Vellante. We'll see you next time. (gentle music playing)

(upbeat music) >> Hello everyone. This is Dave Vellante. We're diving into the deep end with AMD and Oracle on the topic of mySQL HeatWave performance. And we want to explore the important issues around machine learning. As applications become more data intensive and machine intelligence continues to evolve, workloads increasingly are seeing a major shift where data and AI are being infused into applications. And having a database that simplifies the convergence of transaction and analytics data without the need to context, switch and move data out of and into different data stores. And eliminating the need to perform extensive ETL operations is becoming an industry trend that customers are demanding. At the same time, workloads are becoming more automated and intelligent. And to explore these issues further, we're happy to have back in theCUBE Nipun Agarwal, who's the Senior Vice President of mySQL HeatWave and Kumaran Siva, who's the Corporate Vice President Strategic Business Development at AMD. Gents, hello again. Welcome back. >> Hello. Hi Dave. >> Thank you, Dave. >> Okay. Nipun, obviously machine learning has become a must have for analytics offerings. It's integrated into mySQL HeatWave. Why did you take this approach and not the specialized database approach as many competitors do right tool for the right job? >> Right? So, there are a lot of customers of mySQL who have the need to run machine learning on the data which is store in mySQL database. So in the past, customers would need to extract the data out of mySQL and they would take it to a specialized service for running machine learning. Now, the reason we decided to incorporate machine learning inside the database, there are multiple reasons. One, customers don't need to move the data. And if they don't need to move the data, it is more secure because it's protected by the same access controlled mechanisms as rest of the data There is no need for customers to manage multiple services. But in addition to that, when we run the machine learning inside the database customers are able to leverage the same service the same hardware, which has been provisioned for OTP analytics and use machine learning capabilities at no additional charge. So from a customer's perspective, they get the benefits that it is a single database. They don't need to manage multiple services. And it is offered at no additional charge. And then as another aspect, which is kind of hard to learn which is based on the IP, the work we have done it is also significantly faster than what customers would get by having a separate service. >> Just to follow up on that. How are you seeing customers use HeatWaves machine learning capabilities today? How is that evolving? >> Right. So one of the things which, you know customers very often want to do is to train their models based on the data. Now, one of the things is that data in a database or in a transaction database changes quite rapidly. So we have introduced support for auto machine learning as a part of HeatWave ML. And what it does is that it fully automates the process of training. And this is something which is very important to database users, very important to mySQL users that they don't really want to hire or data scientists or specialists for doing training. So that's the first part that training in HeatWave ML is fully automated. Doesn't require the user to provide any like specific parameters, just the source data and the task which they want to train. The second aspect is the training is really fast. So the training is really fast. The benefit is that customers can retrain quite often. They can make sure that the model is up to date with any changes which have been made to their transaction database. And as a result of the models being up to date, the accuracy of the prediction is high. Right? So that's the first aspect, which is training. The second aspect is inference, which customers run once they have the models trained. And the third thing, which is perhaps been the most sought after request from the mySQL customers is the ability to provide explanations. So, HeatWave ML provides explanations for any model which has been generated or trained by HeatWave ML. So these are the three capabilities- training, inference and explanations. And this whole process is completely automated, doesn't require a specialist or a data scientist. >> Yeah, that's nice. I mean, training obviously very popular today. I've said inference I think is going to explode in the coming decade. And then of course, AI explainable AI is a very important issue. Kumaran, what are the relevant capabilities of the AMD chips that are used in OCI to support HeatWave ML? Are they different from say the specs for HeatWave in general? >> So, actually they aren't. And this is one of the key features of this architecture or this implementation that is really exciting. Um, there with HeatWave ML, you're using the same CPU. And by the way, it's not a GPU, it's a CPU for both for all three of the functions that Nipun just talked about- inference, training and explanation all done on CPU. You know, bigger picture with the capabilities we bring here we're really providing a balance, you know between the CPU cores, memory and the networking. And what that allows you to do here is be able to feed the CPU cores appropriately. And within the cores, we have these AVX instruc... extensions in with the Zen 2 and Zen 3 cores. We had AVX 2, and then with the Zen 4 core coming out we're going to have AVX 512. But we were able to with that balance of being able to bring in the data and utilize the high memory bandwidth and then use the computation to its maximum we're able to provide, you know, build pride enough AI processing that we are able to get the job done. And then we're built to build a fit into that larger pipeline that that we build out here with the HeatWave. >> Got it. Nipun you know, you and I every time we have a conversation we've got to talk benchmarks. So you've done machine learning benchmarks with HeatWave. You might even be the first in the industry to publish you know, transparent, open ML benchmarks on GitHub. I mean, I, I wouldn't know for sure but I've not seen that as common. Can you describe the benchmarks and the data sets that you used here? >> Sure. So what we did was we took a bunch of open data sets for two categories of tasks- classification and regression. So we took about a dozen data sets for classification and about six for regression. So to give an example, the kind of data sets we used for classifications like the airlines data set, hex sensors bank, right? So these are open data sets. And what we did was for on these data sets we did a comparison of what would it take to train using HeatWave ML? And then the other service we compared with is that RedShift ML. So, there were two observations. One is that with HeatWave ML, the user does not need to provide any tuning parameters, right? The HeatWave ML using RML fully generates a train model, figures out what are the right algorithms? What are the right features? What are the right hyper parameters and sets, right? So no need for any manual intervention not so the case with Redshift ML. The second thing is the performance, right? So the performance of HeatWave ML aggregate on these 12 data sets for classification and the six data sets on regression. On an average, it is 25 times faster than Redshift ML. And note that Redshift ML in turn involves SageMaker, right? So on an average, HeatWave ML provides 25 times better performance for training. And the other point to note is that there is no need for any human intervention. That's fully automated. But in the case of Redshift ML, many of these data sets did not even complete in the set duration. If you look at price performance, one of the things again I want to highlight is because of the fact that AMD does pretty well in all kinds of workloads. We are able to use the same cluster users and use the same cluster for analytics, for OTP or for machine learning. So there is no additional cost for customers to run HeatWave ML if they have provision HeatWave. But assuming a user is provisioning a HeatWave cluster only to run HeatWave ML, right? That's the case, even in that case the price performance advantage of HeatWave ML over Redshift ML is 97 times, right? So 25 times faster at 1% of the cost compared to Redshift ML And all these scripts and all this information is available on GitHub for customers to try to modify and like, see, like what are the advantages they would get on their workloads? >> Every time I hear these numbers, I shake my head. I mean, they're just so overwhelming. Um, and so we'll see how the competition responds when, and if they respond. So, but thank you for sharing those results. Kumaran, can you elaborate on how the specs that you talked about earlier contribute to HeatWave ML's you know, benchmark results. I'm particularly interested in scalability, you know Typically things degrade as you push the system harder. What are you seeing? >> No, I think, I think it's good. Look, yeah. That's by those numbers, just blow me, blow my head too. That's crazy good performance. So look from, from an AMD perspective, we have really built an architecture. Like if you think about the chiplet architecture to begin with, it is fundamentally, you know, it's kind of scaling by design, right? And, and one of the things that we've done here is been able to work with, with the HeatWave team and heat well ML team, and then been able to, to within within the CPU package itself, be able to scale up to take very efficient use of all of the course. And then of course, work with them on how you go between nodes. So you can have these very large systems that can run ML very, very efficiently. So it's really, you know, building on the building blocks of the chiplet architecture and how scaling happens there. >> Yeah. So it's you're saying it's near linear scaling or essentially. >> So, let Nipun comment on that. >> Yeah. >> Is it... So, how about as cluster sizes grow, Nipun? >> Right. >> What happens there? >> So one of the design points for HeatWave is scale out architecture, right? So as you said, that as we add more data set or increase the size of the data, or we add the number of nodes to the cluster, we want the performance to scale. So we show that we have near linear scale factor, or nearly near scale scalability for SQL workloads in the case of HeatWave ML, as well. As users add more nodes to the cluster so the size of the cluster the performance of HeatWave ML improves. So I was giving you this example that HeatWave ML is 25 times faster compared to Redshift ML. Well, that was on a cluster size of two. If you increase the cluster size of HeatWave ML to a larger number. But I think the number is 16. The performance advantage over Redshift ML increases from 25 times faster to 45 times faster. So what that means is that on a cluster size of 16 nodes HeatWave ML is 45 times faster for training these again, dozen data sets. So this shows that HeatWave ML skills better than the computation. >> So you're saying adding nodes offsets any management complexity that you would think of as getting in the way. Is that right? >> Right. So one is the management complexity and which is why by features like last customers can scale up or scale down, you know, very easily. The second aspect is, okay What gives us this advantage, right, of scalability? Or how are we able to scale? Now, the techniques which we use for HeatWave ML scalability are a bit different from what we use for SQL processing. So in the case of HeatWave ML, they really like, you know, three, two trade offs which we have to be careful about. One is the accuracy. Because we want to provide better performance for machine learning without compromising on the accuracy. So accuracy would require like more synchronization if you have multiple threads. But if you have too much of synchronization that can slow down the degree of patterns that we get. Right? So we have to strike a fine balance. So what we do is that in HeatWave ML, there are different phases of training, like algorithm selection, feature selection, hyper probability training. Each of these phases is analyzed. And for instance, one of the ways techniques we use is that if you're trying to figure out what's the optimal hyper parameter to be used? We start up with the search space. And then each of the VMs gets a part of the search space. And then we synchronize only when needed, right? So these are some of the techniques which we have developed over the years. And there are actually paper's filed, research publications filed on this. And this is what we do to achieve good scalability. And what that results to the customer is that if they have some amount of training time and they want to make it better they can just provision a larger cluster and they will get better performance. >> Got it. Thank you. Kumaran, when I think of machine learning, machine intelligence, AI, I think GPU but you're not using GPU. So how are you able to get this type of performance or price performance without using GPU's? >> Yeah, definitely. So yeah, that's a good point. And you think about what is going on here and you consider the whole pipeline that Nipun has just described in terms of how you get you know, your training, your algorithms And using the mySQL pieces of it to get to the point where the AI can be effective. In that process what happens is you have to have a lot of memory to transactions. A lot of memory bandwidth comes into play. And then bringing all that data together, feeding the actual complex that does the AI calculations that in itself could be the bottleneck, right? And you can have multiple bottlenecks along the way. And I think what you see in the AMD architecture for epic for this use case is the balance. And the fact that you are able to do the pre-processing, the AI, and then the post-processing all kind of seamlessly together, that has a huge value. And that goes back to what Nipun was saying about using the same infrastructure, gets you the better TCO but it also gets you gets you better performance. And that's because of the fact that you're bringing the data to the computation. So the computation in this case is not strictly the bottleneck. It's really about how you pull together what you need and to do the AI computation. And that is, that's probably a more, you know, it's a common case. And so, you know, you're going to start I think the least start to see this especially for inference applications. But in this case we're doing both inference explanation and training. All using the the CPU in the same OCI infrastructure. >> Interesting. Now Nipun, is the secret sauce for HeatWave ML performance different than what we've discussed before you and I with with HeatWave generally? Is there some, you know, additive engine additive that you're putting in? >> Right? Yes. The secret sauce is indeed different, right? Just the way I was saying that for SQL processing. The reason we get very good performance and price performance is because we have come up with new algorithms which help the SQL process can scale out. Similarly for HeatWave ML, we have come up with new IP, new like algorithms. One example is that we use meta-learn proxy models, right? That's the technique we use for automating the training process, right? So think of this meta-learn proxy models to be like, you know using machine learning for machine learning training. And this is an IP which we developed. And again, we have published the results and the techniques. But having such kind of like techniques is what gives us a better performance. Similarly, another thing which we use is adaptive sampling that you can have a large data set. But we intelligently sample to figure out that how can we train on a small subset without compromising on the accuracy? So, yes, there are many techniques that you have developed specifically for machine learning which is what gives us the better performance, better price performance, and also better scalability. >> What about mySQL autopilot? Is there anything that differs from HeatWave ML that is relevant? >> Okay. Interesting you should ask. So mySQL Autopilot is think of it to be an application using machine learning. So mySQL Autopilot uses machine learning to automate various aspects of the database service. So for instance, if you want to figure out that what's the right partitioning scheme to partition the data in memory? We use machine learning techniques to figure out that what's the right, the best column based on the user's workload to partition the data in memory Or given a workload, if you want to figure out what is the right cluster size to provision? That's something we use mySQL autopilot for. And I want to highlight that we don't aware of any other database service which provides this level of machine learning based automation which customers get with mySQL Autopilot. >> Hmm. Interesting. Okay. Last question for both of you. What are you guys working on next? What can customers expect from this collaboration specifically in this space? Maybe Nipun, you can start and then Kamaran can bring us home. >> Sure. So there are two things we are working on. One is based on the feedback we have gotten from customers, we are going to keep making the machine learning capabilities richer in HeatWave ML. That's one dimension. And the second thing is which Kamaran was alluding to earlier, We are looking at the next generation of like processes coming from AMD. And we will be seeing as to how we can more benefit from these processes whether it's the size of the L3 cache, the memory bandwidth, the network bandwidth, and such or the newer effects. And make sure that we leverage the all the greatness which the new generation of processes will offer. >> It's like an engineering playground. Kumaran, let's give you the final word. >> No, that's great. Now look with the Zen 4 CPU cores, we're also bringing in AVX 512 instruction capability. Now our implementation is a little different. It was in, in Rome and Milan, too where we use a double pump implementation. What that means is, you know, we take two cycles to do these instructions. But the key thing there is we don't lower our speed of the CPU. So there's no noisy neighbor effects. And it's something that OCI and the HeatWave has taken full advantage of. And so like, as we go out in time and we see the Zen 4 core, we can... we see up to 96 CPUs that that's going to work really well. So we're collaborating closely with, with OCI and with the HeatWave team here to make sure that we can take advantage of that. And we're also going to upgrade the memory subsystem to get to 12 channels of DDR 5. So it should be, you know there should be a fairly significant boost in absolute performance. But more important or just as importantly in TCO value for the customers, the end customers who are going to adopt this great service. >> I love their relentless innovation guys. Thanks so much for your time. We're going to have to leave it there. Appreciate it. >> Thank you, David. >> Thank you, David. >> Okay. Thank you for watching this special presentation on theCUBE. Your leader in enterprise and emerging tech coverage.

(upbeat music) >> For those of you who've been following the cloud database space, you know that MySQL HeatWave has been on a technology tear over the last 24 months with Oracle claiming record breaking benchmarks relative to other database platforms. So far, those benchmarks remain industry leading as competitors have chosen not to respond, perhaps because they don't feel the need to, or maybe they don't feel that doing so would serve their interest. Regardless, the HeatWave team at Oracle has been very aggressive about its performance claims, making lots of noise, challenging the competition to respond, publishing their scripts to GitHub. But so far, there are no takers, but customers seem to be picking up on these moves by Oracle and it's likely the performance numbers resonate with them. Now, the other area we want to explore, which we haven't thus far, is the engine behind HeatWave and that is AMD. AMD's epic processors have been the powerhouse on OCI, running MySQL HeatWave since day one. And today we're going to explore how these two technology companies are working together to deliver these performance gains and some compelling TCO metrics. In fact, a recent Wikibon analysis from senior analyst Marc Staimer made some TCO comparisons in OLAP workloads relative to AWS, Snowflake, GCP, and Azure databases, you can find that research on wikibon.com. And with that, let me introduce today's guest, Nipun Agarwal senior vice president of MySQL HeatWave and Kumaran Siva, who's the corporate vice president for strategic business development at AMD. Welcome to theCUBE gentlemen. >> Welcome. Thank you. >> Thank you, Dave. >> Hey Nipun, you and I have talked a lot about this. You've been on theCUBE a number of times talking about MySQL HeatWave. But for viewers who may not have seen those episodes maybe you could give us an overview of HeatWave and how it's different from competitive cloud database offerings. >> Sure. So MySQL HeatWave is a fully managed MySQL database service offering from Oracle. It's a single database, which can be used to run transactional processing, analytics and machine learning workloads. So, in the past, MySQL has been designed and optimized for transaction processing. So customers of MySQL when they had to run, analytics machine learning, would need to extract the data out of MySQL, into some other database or service, to run analytics or machine learning. MySQL HeatWave offers a single database for running all kinds of workloads so customers don't need to extract data into some of the database. In addition to having a single database, MySQL HeatWave is also very performant compared to one up databases and also it is very price competitive. So the advantages are; single database, very performant, and very good price performance. >> Yes. And you've published some pretty impressive price performance numbers against competitors. Maybe you could describe those benchmarks and highlight some of the results, please. >> Sure. So one thing to notice that the performance of any database is going to like vary, the performance advantage is going to vary based on, the size of the data and the specific workloads, so the mileage varies, that's the first thing to know. So what we have done is, we have published multiple benchmarks. So we have benchmarks on PPCH or PPCDS and we have benchmarks on different data sizes because based on the customer's workload, the mileage is going to vary, so we want to give customers a broad range of comparisons so that they can decide for themselves. So in a specific case, where we are running on a 30 terabyte PPCH workload, HeatWave is about 18 times better price performance compared to Redshift. 18 times better compared to Redshift, about 33 times better price performance, compared to Snowflake, and 42 times better price performance compared to Google BigQuery. So, this is on 30 Terabyte PPCH. Now, if the data size is different, or the workload is different, the characteristics may vary slightly but this is just to give a flavor of the kind of performance advantage MySQL HeatWave offers. >> And then my last question before we bring in Kumaran. We've talked about the secret sauce being the tight integration between hardware and software, but would you add anything to that? What is that secret sauce in HeatWave that enables you to achieve these performance results and what does it mean for customers? >> So there are three parts to this. One is HeatWave has been designed with a scale out architecture in mind. So we have invented and implemented new algorithms for skill out query processing for analytics. The second aspect is that HeatWave has been really optimized for cloud, commodity cloud, and that's where AMD comes in. So for instance, many of the partitioning schemes we have for processing HeatWave, we optimize them for the L3 cache of the AMD processor. The thing which is very important to our customers is not just the sheer performance but the price performance, and that's where we have had a very good partnership with AMD because not only does AMD help us provide very good performance, but the price performance, right? And that all these numbers which I was showing, big part of it is because we are running on AMD which provides very good price performance. So that's the second aspect. And the third aspect is, MySQL autopilot, which provides machine learning based automation. So it's really these three things, a combination of new algorithms, design for scale out query processing, optimized for commodity cloud hardware, specifically AMD processors, and third, MySQL auto pilot which gives us this performance advantage. >> Great, thank you. So that's a good segue for AMD and Kumaran. So Kumaran, what is AMD bringing to the table? What are the, like, for instance, relevance specs of the chips that are used in Oracle cloud infrastructure and what makes them unique? >> Yeah, thanks Dave. That's a good question. So, OCI is a great customer of ours. They use what we call the top of stack devices meaning that they have the highest core count and they also are very, very fast cores. So these are currently Zen 3 cores. I think the HeatWave product is right now deployed on Zen 2 but will shortly be also on the Zen 3 core as well. But we provide in the case of OCI 64 cores. So that's the largest devices that we build. What actually happens is, because these large number of CPUs in a single package and therefore increasing the density of the node, you end up with this fantastic TCO equation and the cost per performance, the cost per for deployed services like HeatWave actually ends up being extraordinarily competitive and that's a big part of the contribution that we're bringing in here. >> So Zen 3 is the AMD micro architecture which you introduced, I think in 2017, and it's the basis for EPIC, which is sort of the enterprise grade that you really attacked the enterprise with. Maybe you could elaborate a little bit, double click on how your chips contribute specifically to HeatWave's, price performance results. >> Yeah, absolutely. So in the case of HeatWave, so as Nipun alluded to, we have very large L3 caches, right? So in our very, very top end parts just like the Milan X devices, we can go all the way up to like 768 megabytes of L3 cache. And that gives you just enormous performance and performance gains. And that's part of what we're seeing with HeatWave today and that not that they're currently on the second generation ROM based product, 'cause it's a 7,002 based product line running with the 64 cores. But as time goes on, they'll be adopting the next generation Milan as well. And the other part of it too is, as our chip led architecture has evolved, we know, so from the first generation Naples way back in 2017, we went from having multiple memory domains and a sort of NUMA architecture at the time, today we've really optimized that architecture. We use a common I/O Die that has all of the memory channels attached to it. And what that means is that, these scale out applications like HeatWave, are able to really scale very efficiently as they go from a small domain of CPUs to, for example the entire chip, all 64 cores that scaling, is been a key focus for AMD and being able to design and build architectures that can take advantage of that and then have applications like HeatWave that scale so well on it, has been, a key aim of ours. >> And Gen 3 moving up the Italian countryside. Nipun, you've taken the somewhat unusual step of posting the benchmark parameters, making them public on GitHub. Now, HeatWave is relatively new. So people felt that when Oracle gained ownership of MySQL it would let it wilt on the vine in favor of Oracle database, so you lost some ground and now, you're getting very aggressive with HeatWave. What's the reason for publishing those benchmark parameters on GitHub? >> So, the main reason for us to publish price performance numbers for HeatWave is to communicate to our customers a sense of what are the benefits they're going to get when they use HeatWave. But we want to be very transparent because as I said the performance advantages for the customers may vary, based on the data size, based on the specific workloads. So one of the reasons for us to publish, all these scripts on GitHub is for transparency. So we want customers to take a look at the scripts, know what we have done, and be confident that we stand by the numbers which we are publishing, and they're very welcome, to try these numbers themselves. In fact, we have had customers who have downloaded the scripts from GitHub and run them on our service to kind of validate. The second aspect is in some cases, they may be some deviations from what we are publishing versus what the customer would like to run in the production deployments so it provides an easy way, for customers to take the scripts, modify them in some ways which may suit their real world scenario and run to see what the performance advantages are. So that's the main reason, first, is transparency, so the customers can see what we are doing, because of the comparison, and B, if they want to modify it to suit their needs, and then see what is the performance of HeatWave, they're very welcome to do so. >> So have customers done that? Have they taken the benchmarks? And I mean, if I were a competitor, honestly, I wouldn't get into that food fight because of the impressive performance, but unless I had to, I mean, have customers picked up on that, Nipun? >> Absolutely. In fact, we have had many customers who have benchmarked the performance of MySQL HeatWave, with other services. And the fact that the scripts are available, gives them a very good starting point, and then they've also tweaked those queries in some cases, to see what the Delta would be. And in some cases, customers got back to us saying, hey the performance advantage of HeatWave is actually slightly higher than what was published and what is the reason. And the reason was, when the customers were trying, they were trying on the latest version of the service, and our benchmark results were posted let's say, two months back. So the service had improved in those two to three months and customers actually saw better performance. So yes, absolutely. We have seen customers download the scripts, try them and also modify them to some extent and then do the comparison of HeatWave with other services. >> Interesting. Maybe a question for both of you how is the competition responding to this? They haven't said, "Hey, we're going to come up "with our own benchmarks." Which is very common, you oftentimes see that. Although, for instance, Snowflake hasn't responded to data bricks, so that's not their game, but if the customers are actually, putting a lot of faith in the benchmarks and actually using that for buying decisions, then it's inevitable. But how have you seen the competition respond to the MySQL HeatWave and AMD combo? >> So maybe I can take the first track from the database service standpoint. When customers have more choice, it is invariably advantages for the customer because then the competition is going to react, right? So the way we have seen the reaction is that we do believe, that the other database services are going to take a closer eye to the price performance, right? Because if you're offering such good price performance, the vendors are already looking at it. And, you know, instances where they have offered let's say discount to the customers, to kind of at least like close the gap to some extent. And the second thing would be in terms of the capability. So like one of the things which I should have mentioned even early on, is that not only does MySQL HeatWave on AMD, provide very good price performance, say on like a small cluster, but it's all the way up to a cluster size of 64 nodes, which has about 1000 cores. So the point is, that HeatWave performs very well, both on a small system, as well as a huge scale out. And this is again, one of those things which is a differentiation compared to other services so we expect that even other database services will have to improve their offerings to provide the same good scale factor, which customers are now starting to expectancy, with MySQL HeatWave. >> Kumaran, anything you'd add to that? I mean, you guys are an arms dealer, you love all your OEMs, but at the same time, you've got chip competitors, Silicon competitors. How do you see the competitive-- >> I'd say the broader answer and the big picture for AMD, we're very maniacally focused on our customers, right? And OCI and Oracle are huge and important customers for us, and this particular use cases is extremely interesting both in that it takes advantage, very well of our architecture and it pulls out some of the value that AMD bring. I think from a big picture standpoint, our aim is to execute, to build to bring out generations of CPUs, kind of, you know, do what we say and say, sorry, say what we do and do what we say. And from that point of view, we're hitting, the schedules that we say, and being able to bring out the latest technology and bring it in a TCO value proposition that generationally keeps OCI and HeatWave ahead. That's the crux of our partnership here. >> Yeah, the execution's been obvious for the last several years. Kumaran, staying with you, how would you characterize the collaboration between, the AMD engineers and the HeatWave engineering team? How do you guys work together? >> No, I'd say we're in a very, very deep collaboration. So, there's a few aspects where, we've actually been working together very closely on the code and being able to optimize for both the large L3 cache that AMD has, and so to be able to take advantage of that. And then also, to be able to take advantage of the scaling. So going between, you know, our architecture is chip like based, so we have these, the CPU cores on, we call 'em CCDs and the inter CCD communication, there's opportunities to optimize an application level and that's something we've been engaged with. In the broader engagement, we are going back now for multiple generations with OCI, and there's a lot of input that now, kind of resonates in the product line itself. And so we value this very close collaboration with HeatWave and OCI. >> Yeah, and the cadence, Nip, and you and I have talked about this quite a bit. The cadence has been quite rapid. It's like this constant cycle every couple of months I turn around, is something new on HeatWave. But for question again, for both of you, what new things do you think that organizations, customers, are going to be able to do with MySQL HeatWave if you could look out next 12 to 18 months, is there anything you can share at this time about future collaborations? >> Right, look, 12 to 18 months is a long time. There's going to be a lot of innovation, a lot of new capabilities coming out on in MySQL HeatWave. But even based on what we are currently offering, and the trend we are seeing is that customers are bringing, more classes of workloads. So we started off with OLTP for MySQL, then it went to analytics. Then we increased it to mixed workloads, and now we offer like machine learning as alike. So one is we are seeing, more and more classes of workloads come to MySQL HeatWave. And the second is a scale, that kind of data volumes people are using HeatWave for, to process these mixed workloads, analytics machine learning OLTP, that's increasing. Now, along the way we are making it simpler to use, we are making it more cost effective use. So for instance, last time, when we talked about, we had introduced this real time elasticity and that's something which is a very, very popular feature because customers want the ability to be able to scale out, or scale down very efficiently. That's something we provided. We provided support for compression. So all of these capabilities are making it more efficient for customers to run a larger part of their workloads on MySQL HeatWave, and we will continue to make it richer in the next 12 to 18 months. >> Thank you. Kumaran, anything you'd add to that, we'll give you the last word as we got to wrap it. >> No, absolutely. So, you know, next 12 to 18 months we will have our Zen 4 CPUs out. So this could potentially go into the next generation of the OCI infrastructure. This would be with the Genoa and then Bergamo CPUs taking us to 96 and 128 cores with 12 channels at DDR five. This capability, you know, when applied to an application like HeatWave, you can see that it'll open up another order of magnitude potentially of use cases, right? And we're excited to see what customers can do do with that. It certainly will make, kind of the, this service, and the cloud in general, that this cloud migration, I think even more attractive. So we're pretty excited to see how things evolve in this period of time. >> Yeah, the innovations are coming together. Guys, thanks so much, we got to leave it there really appreciate your time. >> Thank you. >> All right, and thank you for watching this special Cube conversation, this is Dave Vellante, and we'll see you next time. (soft calm music)

>> From The Cube Studios in Palo Alto and Boston, bringing you data driven insights from The Cube at ETR. This is "Breaking Analysis" with Dave Vellante. >> The reverse momentum in tech stocks caused by rising interest rates, less attractive discounted cash flow models, and more tepid forward guidance, can be easily measured by public market valuations. And while there's lots of discussion about the impact on private companies and cash runway and 409A valuations, measuring the performance of non-public companies isn't as easy. IPOs have dried up and public statements by private companies, of course, they accentuate the good and they kind of hide the bad. Real data, unless you're an insider, is hard to find. Hello and welcome to this week's "Wikibon Cube Insights" powered by ETR. In this "Breaking Analysis", we unlock some of the secrets that non-public, emerging tech companies may or may not be sharing. And we do this by introducing you to a capability from ETR that we've not exposed you to over the past couple of years, it's called the Emerging Technologies Survey, and it is packed with sentiment data and performance data based on surveys of more than a thousand CIOs and IT buyers covering more than 400 companies. And we've invited back our colleague, Erik Bradley of ETR to help explain the survey and the data that we're going to cover today. Erik, this survey is something that I've not personally spent much time on, but I'm blown away at the data. It's really unique and detailed. First of all, welcome. Good to see you again. >> Great to see you too, Dave, and I'm really happy to be talking about the ETS or the Emerging Technology Survey. Even our own clients of constituents probably don't spend as much time in here as they should. >> Yeah, because there's so much in the mainstream, but let's pull up a slide to bring out the survey composition. Tell us about the study. How often do you run it? What's the background and the methodology? >> Yeah, you were just spot on the way you were talking about the private tech companies out there. So what we did is we decided to take all the vendors that we track that are not yet public and move 'em over to the ETS. And there isn't a lot of information out there. If you're not in Silicon (indistinct), you're not going to get this stuff. So PitchBook and Tech Crunch are two out there that gives some data on these guys. But what we really wanted to do was go out to our community. We have 6,000, ITDMs in our community. We wanted to ask them, "Are you aware of these companies? And if so, are you allocating any resources to them? Are you planning to evaluate them," and really just kind of figure out what we can do. So this particular survey, as you can see, 1000 plus responses, over 450 vendors that we track. And essentially what we're trying to do here is talk about your evaluation and awareness of these companies and also your utilization. And also if you're not utilizing 'em, then we can also figure out your sales conversion or churn. So this is interesting, not only for the ITDMs themselves to figure out what their peers are evaluating and what they should put in POCs against the big guys when contracts come up. But it's also really interesting for the tech vendors themselves to see how they're performing. >> And you can see 2/3 of the respondents are director level of above. You got 28% is C-suite. There is of course a North America bias, 70, 75% is North America. But these smaller companies, you know, that's when they start doing business. So, okay. We're going to do a couple of things here today. First, we're going to give you the big picture across the sectors that ETR covers within the ETS survey. And then we're going to look at the high and low sentiment for the larger private companies. And then we're going to do the same for the smaller private companies, the ones that don't have as much mindshare. And then I'm going to put those two groups together and we're going to look at two dimensions, actually three dimensions, which companies are being evaluated the most. Second, companies are getting the most usage and adoption of their offerings. And then third, which companies are seeing the highest churn rates, which of course is a silent killer of companies. And then finally, we're going to look at the sentiment and mindshare for two key areas that we like to cover often here on "Breaking Analysis", security and data. And data comprises database, including data warehousing, and then big data analytics is the second part of data. And then machine learning and AI is the third section within data that we're going to look at. Now, one other thing before we get into it, ETR very often will include open source offerings in the mix, even though they're not companies like TensorFlow or Kubernetes, for example. And we'll call that out during this discussion. The reason this is done is for context, because everyone is using open source. It is the heart of innovation and many business models are super glued to an open source offering, like take MariaDB, for example. There's the foundation and then there's with the open source code and then there, of course, the company that sells services around the offering. Okay, so let's first look at the highest and lowest sentiment among these private firms, the ones that have the highest mindshare. So they're naturally going to be somewhat larger. And we do this on two dimensions, sentiment on the vertical axis and mindshare on the horizontal axis and note the open source tool, see Kubernetes, Postgres, Kafka, TensorFlow, Jenkins, Grafana, et cetera. So Erik, please explain what we're looking at here, how it's derived and what the data tells us. >> Certainly, so there is a lot here, so we're going to break it down first of all by explaining just what mindshare and net sentiment is. You explain the axis. We have so many evaluation metrics, but we need to aggregate them into one so that way we can rank against each other. Net sentiment is really the aggregation of all the positive and subtracting out the negative. So the net sentiment is a very quick way of looking at where these companies stand versus their peers in their sectors and sub sectors. Mindshare is basically the awareness of them, which is good for very early stage companies. And you'll see some names on here that are obviously been around for a very long time. And they're clearly be the bigger on the axis on the outside. Kubernetes, for instance, as you mentioned, is open source. This de facto standard for all container orchestration, and it should be that far up into the right, because that's what everyone's using. In fact, the open source leaders are so prevalent in the emerging technology survey that we break them out later in our analysis, 'cause it's really not fair to include them and compare them to the actual companies that are providing the support and the security around that open source technology. But no survey, no analysis, no research would be complete without including these open source tech. So what we're looking at here, if I can just get away from the open source names, we see other things like Databricks and OneTrust . They're repeating as top net sentiment performers here. And then also the design vendors. People don't spend a lot of time on 'em, but Miro and Figma. This is their third survey in a row where they're just dominating that sentiment overall. And Adobe should probably take note of that because they're really coming after them. But Databricks, we all know probably would've been a public company by now if the market hadn't turned, but you can see just how dominant they are in a survey of nothing but private companies. And we'll see that again when we talk about the database later. >> And I'll just add, so you see automation anywhere on there, the big UiPath competitor company that was not able to get to the public markets. They've been trying. Snyk, Peter McKay's company, they've raised a bunch of money, big security player. They're doing some really interesting things in developer security, helping developers secure the data flow, H2O.ai, Dataiku AI company. We saw them at the Snowflake Summit. Redis Labs, Netskope and security. So a lot of names that we know that ultimately we think are probably going to be hitting the public market. Okay, here's the same view for private companies with less mindshare, Erik. Take us through this one. >> On the previous slide too real quickly, I wanted to pull that security scorecard and we'll get back into it. But this is a newcomer, that I couldn't believe how strong their data was, but we'll bring that up in a second. Now, when we go to the ones of lower mindshare, it's interesting to talk about open source, right? Kubernetes was all the way on the top right. Everyone uses containers. Here we see Istio up there. Not everyone is using service mesh as much. And that's why Istio is in the smaller breakout. But still when you talk about net sentiment, it's about the leader, it's the highest one there is. So really interesting to point out. Then we see other names like Collibra in the data side really performing well. And again, as always security, very well represented here. We have Aqua, Wiz, Armis, which is a standout in this survey this time around. They do IoT security. I hadn't even heard of them until I started digging into the data here. And I couldn't believe how well they were doing. And then of course you have AnyScale, which is doing a second best in this and the best name in the survey Hugging Face, which is a machine learning AI tool. Also doing really well on a net sentiment, but they're not as far along on that access of mindshare just yet. So these are again, emerging companies that might not be as well represented in the enterprise as they will be in a couple of years. >> Hugging Face sounds like something you do with your two year old. Like you said, you see high performers, AnyScale do machine learning and you mentioned them. They came out of Berkeley. Collibra Governance, InfluxData is on there. InfluxDB's a time series database. And yeah, of course, Alex, if you bring that back up, you get a big group of red dots, right? That's the bad zone, I guess, which Sisense does vis, Yellowbrick Data is a NPP database. How should we interpret the red dots, Erik? I mean, is it necessarily a bad thing? Could it be misinterpreted? What's your take on that? >> Sure, well, let me just explain the definition of it first from a data science perspective, right? We're a data company first. So the gray dots that you're seeing that aren't named, that's the mean that's the average. So in order for you to be on this chart, you have to be at least one standard deviation above or below that average. So that gray is where we're saying, "Hey, this is where the lump of average comes in. This is where everyone normally stands." So you either have to be an outperformer or an underperformer to even show up in this analysis. So by definition, yes, the red dots are bad. You're at least one standard deviation below the average of your peers. It's not where you want to be. And if you're on the lower left, not only are you not performing well from a utilization or an actual usage rate, but people don't even know who you are. So that's a problem, obviously. And the VCs and the PEs out there that are backing these companies, they're the ones who mostly are interested in this data. >> Yeah. Oh, that's great explanation. Thank you for that. No, nice benchmarking there and yeah, you don't want to be in the red. All right, let's get into the next segment here. Here going to look at evaluation rates, adoption and the all important churn. First new evaluations. Let's bring up that slide. And Erik, take us through this. >> So essentially I just want to explain what evaluation means is that people will cite that they either plan to evaluate the company or they're currently evaluating. So that means we're aware of 'em and we are choosing to do a POC of them. And then we'll see later how that turns into utilization, which is what a company wants to see, awareness, evaluation, and then actually utilizing them. That's sort of the life cycle for these emerging companies. So what we're seeing here, again, with very high evaluation rates. H2O, we mentioned. SecurityScorecard jumped up again. Chargebee, Snyk, Salt Security, Armis. A lot of security names are up here, Aqua, Netskope, which God has been around forever. I still can't believe it's in an Emerging Technology Survey But so many of these names fall in data and security again, which is why we decided to pick those out Dave. And on the lower side, Vena, Acton, those unfortunately took the dubious award of the lowest evaluations in our survey, but I prefer to focus on the positive. So SecurityScorecard, again, real standout in this one, they're in a security assessment space, basically. They'll come in and assess for you how your security hygiene is. And it's an area of a real interest right now amongst our ITDM community. >> Yeah, I mean, I think those, and then Arctic Wolf is up there too. They're doing managed services. You had mentioned Netskope. Yeah, okay. All right, let's look at now adoption. These are the companies whose offerings are being used the most and are above that standard deviation in the green. Take us through this, Erik. >> Sure, yet again, what we're looking at is, okay, we went from awareness, we went to evaluation. Now it's about utilization, which means a survey respondent's going to state "Yes, we evaluated and we plan to utilize it" or "It's already in our enterprise and we're actually allocating further resources to it." Not surprising, again, a lot of open source, the reason why, it's free. So it's really easy to grow your utilization on something that's free. But as you and I both know, as Red Hat proved, there's a lot of money to be made once the open source is adopted, right? You need the governance, you need the security, you need the support wrapped around it. So here we're seeing Kubernetes, Postgres, Apache Kafka, Jenkins, Grafana. These are all open source based names. But if we're looking at names that are non open source, we're going to see Databricks, Automation Anywhere, Rubrik all have the highest mindshare. So these are the names, not surprisingly, all names that probably should have been public by now. Everyone's expecting an IPO imminently. These are the names that have the highest mindshare. If we talk about the highest utilization rates, again, Miro and Figma pop up, and I know they're not household names, but they are just dominant in this survey. These are applications that are meant for design software and, again, they're going after an Autodesk or a CAD or Adobe type of thing. It is just dominant how high the utilization rates are here, which again is something Adobe should be paying attention to. And then you'll see a little bit lower, but also interesting, we see Collibra again, we see Hugging Face again. And these are names that are obviously in the data governance, ML, AI side. So we're seeing a ton of data, a ton of security and Rubrik was interesting in this one, too, high utilization and high mindshare. We know how pervasive they are in the enterprise already. >> Erik, Alex, keep that up for a second, if you would. So yeah, you mentioned Rubrik. Cohesity's not on there. They're sort of the big one. We're going to talk about them in a moment. Puppet is interesting to me because you remember the early days of that sort of space, you had Puppet and Chef and then you had Ansible. Red Hat bought Ansible and then Ansible really took off. So it's interesting to see Puppet on there as well. Okay. So now let's look at the churn because this one is where you don't want to be. It's, of course, all red 'cause churn is bad. Take us through this, Erik. >> Yeah, definitely don't want to be here and I don't love to dwell on the negative. So we won't spend as much time. But to your point, there's one thing I want to point out that think it's important. So you see Rubrik in the same spot, but Rubrik has so many citations in our survey that it actually would make sense that they're both being high utilization and churn just because they're so well represented. They have such a high overall representation in our survey. And the reason I call that out is Cohesity. Cohesity has an extremely high churn rate here about 17% and unlike Rubrik, they were not on the utilization side. So Rubrik is seeing both, Cohesity is not. It's not being utilized, but it's seeing a high churn. So that's the way you can look at this data and say, "Hm." Same thing with Puppet. You noticed that it was on the other slide. It's also on this one. So basically what it means is a lot of people are giving Puppet a shot, but it's starting to churn, which means it's not as sticky as we would like. One that was surprising on here for me was Tanium. It's kind of jumbled in there. It's hard to see in the middle, but Tanium, I was very surprised to see as high of a churn because what I do hear from our end user community is that people that use it, like it. It really kind of spreads into not only vulnerability management, but also that endpoint detection and response side. So I was surprised by that one, mostly to see Tanium in here. Mural, again, was another one of those application design softwares that's seeing a very high churn as well. >> So you're saying if you're in both... Alex, bring that back up if you would. So if you're in both like MariaDB is for example, I think, yeah, they're in both. They're both green in the previous one and red here, that's not as bad. You mentioned Rubrik is going to be in both. Cohesity is a bit of a concern. Cohesity just brought on Sanjay Poonen. So this could be a go to market issue, right? I mean, 'cause Cohesity has got a great product and they got really happy customers. So they're just maybe having to figure out, okay, what's the right ideal customer profile and Sanjay Poonen, I guarantee, is going to have that company cranking. I mean they had been doing very well on the surveys and had fallen off of a bit. The other interesting things wondering the previous survey I saw Cvent, which is an event platform. My only reason I pay attention to that is 'cause we actually have an event platform. We don't sell it separately. We bundle it as part of our offerings. And you see Hopin on here. Hopin raised a billion dollars during the pandemic. And we were like, "Wow, that's going to blow up." And so you see Hopin on the churn and you didn't see 'em in the previous chart, but that's sort of interesting. Like you said, let's not kind of dwell on the negative, but you really don't. You know, churn is a real big concern. Okay, now we're going to drill down into two sectors, security and data. Where data comprises three areas, database and data warehousing, machine learning and AI and big data analytics. So first let's take a look at the security sector. Now this is interesting because not only is it a sector drill down, but also gives an indicator of how much money the firm has raised, which is the size of that bubble. And to tell us if a company is punching above its weight and efficiently using its venture capital. Erik, take us through this slide. Explain the dots, the size of the dots. Set this up please. >> Yeah. So again, the axis is still the same, net sentiment and mindshare, but what we've done this time is we've taken publicly available information on how much capital company is raised and that'll be the size of the circle you see around the name. And then whether it's green or red is basically saying relative to the amount of money they've raised, how are they doing in our data? So when you see a Netskope, which has been around forever, raised a lot of money, that's why you're going to see them more leading towards red, 'cause it's just been around forever and kind of would expect it. Versus a name like SecurityScorecard, which is only raised a little bit of money and it's actually performing just as well, if not better than a name, like a Netskope. OneTrust doing absolutely incredible right now. BeyondTrust. We've seen the issues with Okta, right. So those are two names that play in that space that obviously are probably getting some looks about what's going on right now. Wiz, we've all heard about right? So raised a ton of money. It's doing well on net sentiment, but the mindshare isn't as well as you'd want, which is why you're going to see a little bit of that red versus a name like Aqua, which is doing container and application security. And hasn't raised as much money, but is really neck and neck with a name like Wiz. So that is why on a relative basis, you'll see that more green. As we all know, information security is never going away. But as we'll get to later in the program, Dave, I'm not sure in this current market environment, if people are as willing to do POCs and switch away from their security provider, right. There's a little bit of tepidness out there, a little trepidation. So right now we're seeing overall a slight pause, a slight cooling in overall evaluations on the security side versus historical levels a year ago. >> Now let's stay on here for a second. So a couple things I want to point out. So it's interesting. Now Snyk has raised over, I think $800 million but you can see them, they're high on the vertical and the horizontal, but now compare that to Lacework. It's hard to see, but they're kind of buried in the middle there. That's the biggest dot in this whole thing. I think I'm interpreting this correctly. They've raised over a billion dollars. It's a Mike Speiser company. He was the founding investor in Snowflake. So people watch that very closely, but that's an example of where they're not punching above their weight. They recently had a layoff and they got to fine tune things, but I'm still confident they they're going to do well. 'Cause they're approaching security as a data problem, which is probably people having trouble getting their arms around that. And then again, I see Arctic Wolf. They're not red, they're not green, but they've raised fair amount of money, but it's showing up to the right and decent level there. And a couple of the other ones that you mentioned, Netskope. Yeah, they've raised a lot of money, but they're actually performing where you want. What you don't want is where Lacework is, right. They've got some work to do to really take advantage of the money that they raised last November and prior to that. >> Yeah, if you're seeing that more neutral color, like you're calling out with an Arctic Wolf, like that means relative to their peers, this is where they should be. It's when you're seeing that red on a Lacework where we all know, wow, you raised a ton of money and your mindshare isn't where it should be. Your net sentiment is not where it should be comparatively. And then you see these great standouts, like Salt Security and SecurityScorecard and Abnormal. You know they haven't raised that much money yet, but their net sentiment's higher and their mindshare's doing well. So those basically in a nutshell, if you're a PE or a VC and you see a small green circle, then you're doing well, then it means you made a good investment. >> Some of these guys, I don't know, but you see these small green circles. Those are the ones you want to start digging into and maybe help them catch a wave. Okay, let's get into the data discussion. And again, three areas, database slash data warehousing, big data analytics and ML AI. First, we're going to look at the database sector. So Alex, thank you for bringing that up. Alright, take us through this, Erik. Actually, let me just say Postgres SQL. I got to ask you about this. It shows some funding, but that actually could be a mix of EDB, the company that commercializes Postgres and Postgres the open source database, which is a transaction system and kind of an open source Oracle. You see MariaDB is a database, but open source database. But the companies they've raised over $200 million and they filed an S-4. So Erik looks like this might be a little bit of mashup of companies and open source products. Help us understand this. >> Yeah, it's tough when you start dealing with the open source side and I'll be honest with you, there is a little bit of a mashup here. There are certain names here that are a hundred percent for profit companies. And then there are others that are obviously open source based like Redis is open source, but Redis Labs is the one trying to monetize the support around it. So you're a hundred percent accurate on this slide. I think one of the things here that's important to note though, is just how important open source is to data. If you're going to be going to any of these areas, it's going to be open source based to begin with. And Neo4j is one I want to call out here. It's not one everyone's familiar with, but it's basically geographical charting database, which is a name that we're seeing on a net sentiment side actually really, really high. When you think about it's the third overall net sentiment for a niche database play. It's not as big on the mindshare 'cause it's use cases aren't as often, but third biggest play on net sentiment. I found really interesting on this slide. >> And again, so MariaDB, as I said, they filed an S-4 I think $50 million in revenue, that might even be ARR. So they're not huge, but they're getting there. And by the way, MariaDB, if you don't know, was the company that was formed the day that Oracle bought Sun in which they got MySQL and MariaDB has done a really good job of replacing a lot of MySQL instances. Oracle has responded with MySQL HeatWave, which was kind of the Oracle version of MySQL. So there's some interesting battles going on there. If you think about the LAMP stack, the M in the LAMP stack was MySQL. And so now it's all MariaDB replacing that MySQL for a large part. And then you see again, the red, you know, you got to have some concerns about there. Aerospike's been around for a long time. SingleStore changed their name a couple years ago, last year. Yellowbrick Data, Fire Bolt was kind of going after Snowflake for a while, but yeah, you want to get out of that red zone. So they got some work to do. >> And Dave, real quick for the people that aren't aware, I just want to let them know that we can cut this data with the public company data as well. So we can cross over this with that because some of these names are competing with the larger public company names as well. So we can go ahead and cross reference like a MariaDB with a Mongo, for instance, or of something of that nature. So it's not in this slide, but at another point we can certainly explain on a relative basis how these private names are doing compared to the other ones as well. >> All right, let's take a quick look at analytics. Alex, bring that up if you would. Go ahead, Erik. >> Yeah, I mean, essentially here, I can't see it on my screen, my apologies. I just kind of went to blank on that. So gimme one second to catch up. >> So I could set it up while you're doing that. You got Grafana up and to the right. I mean, this is huge right. >> Got it thank you. I lost my screen there for a second. Yep. Again, open source name Grafana, absolutely up and to the right. But as we know, Grafana Labs is actually picking up a lot of speed based on Grafana, of course. And I think we might actually hear some noise from them coming this year. The names that are actually a little bit more disappointing than I want to call out are names like ThoughtSpot. It's been around forever. Their mindshare of course is second best here but based on the amount of time they've been around and the amount of money they've raised, it's not actually outperforming the way it should be. We're seeing Moogsoft obviously make some waves. That's very high net sentiment for that company. It's, you know, what, third, fourth position overall in this entire area, Another name like Fivetran, Matillion is doing well. Fivetran, even though it's got a high net sentiment, again, it's raised so much money that we would've expected a little bit more at this point. I know you know this space extremely well, but basically what we're looking at here and to the bottom left, you're going to see some names with a lot of red, large circles that really just aren't performing that well. InfluxData, however, second highest net sentiment. And it's really pretty early on in this stage and the feedback we're getting on this name is the use cases are great, the efficacy's great. And I think it's one to watch out for. >> InfluxData, time series database. The other interesting things I just noticed here, you got Tamer on here, which is that little small green. Those are the ones we were saying before, look for those guys. They might be some of the interesting companies out there and then observe Jeremy Burton's company. They do observability on top of Snowflake, not green, but kind of in that gray. So that's kind of cool. Monte Carlo is another one, they're sort of slightly green. They are doing some really interesting things in data and data mesh. So yeah, okay. So I can spend all day on this stuff, Erik, phenomenal data. I got to get back and really dig in. Let's end with machine learning and AI. Now this chart it's similar in its dimensions, of course, except for the money raised. We're not showing that size of the bubble, but AI is so hot. We wanted to cover that here, Erik, explain this please. Why TensorFlow is highlighted and walk us through this chart. >> Yeah, it's funny yet again, right? Another open source name, TensorFlow being up there. And I just want to explain, we do break out machine learning, AI is its own sector. A lot of this of course really is intertwined with the data side, but it is on its own area. And one of the things I think that's most important here to break out is Databricks. We started to cover Databricks in machine learning, AI. That company has grown into much, much more than that. So I do want to state to you Dave, and also the audience out there that moving forward, we're going to be moving Databricks out of only the MA/AI into other sectors. So we can kind of value them against their peers a little bit better. But in this instance, you could just see how dominant they are in this area. And one thing that's not here, but I do want to point out is that we have the ability to break this down by industry vertical, organization size. And when I break this down into Fortune 500 and Fortune 1000, both Databricks and Tensorflow are even better than you see here. So it's quite interesting to see that the names that are succeeding are also succeeding with the largest organizations in the world. And as we know, large organizations means large budgets. So this is one area that I just thought was really interesting to point out that as we break it down, the data by vertical, these two names still are the outstanding players. >> I just also want to call it H2O.ai. They're getting a lot of buzz in the marketplace and I'm seeing them a lot more. Anaconda, another one. Dataiku consistently popping up. DataRobot is also interesting because all the kerfuffle that's going on there. The Cube guy, Cube alum, Chris Lynch stepped down as executive chairman. All this stuff came out about how the executives were taking money off the table and didn't allow the employees to participate in that money raising deal. So that's pissed a lot of people off. And so they're now going through some kind of uncomfortable things, which is unfortunate because DataRobot, I noticed, we haven't covered them that much in "Breaking Analysis", but I've noticed them oftentimes, Erik, in the surveys doing really well. So you would think that company has a lot of potential. But yeah, it's an important space that we're going to continue to watch. Let me ask you Erik, can you contextualize this from a time series standpoint? I mean, how is this changed over time? >> Yeah, again, not show here, but in the data. I'm sorry, go ahead. >> No, I'm sorry. What I meant, I should have interjected. In other words, you would think in a downturn that these emerging companies would be less interesting to buyers 'cause they're more risky. What have you seen? >> Yeah, and it was interesting before we went live, you and I were having this conversation about "Is the downturn stopping people from evaluating these private companies or not," right. In a larger sense, that's really what we're doing here. How are these private companies doing when it comes down to the actual practitioners? The people with the budget, the people with the decision making. And so what I did is, we have historical data as you know, I went back to the Emerging Technology Survey we did in November of 21, right at the crest right before the market started to really fall and everything kind of started to fall apart there. And what I noticed is on the security side, very much so, we're seeing less evaluations than we were in November 21. So I broke it down. On cloud security, net sentiment went from 21% to 16% from November '21. That's a pretty big drop. And again, that sentiment is our one aggregate metric for overall positivity, meaning utilization and actual evaluation of the name. Again in database, we saw it drop a little bit from 19% to 13%. However, in analytics we actually saw it stay steady. So it's pretty interesting that yes, cloud security and security in general is always going to be important. But right now we're seeing less overall net sentiment in that space. But within analytics, we're seeing steady with growing mindshare. And also to your point earlier in machine learning, AI, we're seeing steady net sentiment and mindshare has grown a whopping 25% to 30%. So despite the downturn, we're seeing more awareness of these companies in analytics and machine learning and a steady, actual utilization of them. I can't say the same in security and database. They're actually shrinking a little bit since the end of last year. >> You know it's interesting, we were on a round table, Erik does these round tables with CISOs and CIOs, and I remember one time you had asked the question, "How do you think about some of these emerging tech companies?" And one of the executives said, "I always include somebody in the bottom left of the Gartner Magic Quadrant in my RFPs. I think he said, "That's how I found," I don't know, it was Zscaler or something like that years before anybody ever knew of them "Because they're going to help me get to the next level." So it's interesting to see Erik in these sectors, how they're holding up in many cases. >> Yeah. It's a very important part for the actual IT practitioners themselves. There's always contracts coming up and you always have to worry about your next round of negotiations. And that's one of the roles these guys play. You have to do a POC when contracts come up, but it's also their job to stay on top of the new technology. You can't fall behind. Like everyone's a software company. Now everyone's a tech company, no matter what you're doing. So these guys have to stay in on top of it. And that's what this ETS can do. You can go in here and look and say, "All right, I'm going to evaluate their technology," and it could be twofold. It might be that you're ready to upgrade your technology and they're actually pushing the envelope or it simply might be I'm using them as a negotiation ploy. So when I go back to the big guy who I have full intentions of writing that contract to, at least I have some negotiation leverage. >> Erik, we got to leave it there. I could spend all day. I'm going to definitely dig into this on my own time. Thank you for introducing this, really appreciate your time today. >> I always enjoy it, Dave and I hope everyone out there has a great holiday weekend. Enjoy the rest of the summer. And, you know, I love to talk data. So anytime you want, just point the camera on me and I'll start talking data. >> You got it. I also want to thank the team at ETR, not only Erik, but Darren Bramen who's a data scientist, really helped prepare this data, the entire team over at ETR. I cannot tell you how much additional data there is. We are just scratching the surface in this "Breaking Analysis". So great job guys. I want to thank Alex Myerson. Who's on production and he manages the podcast. Ken Shifman as well, who's just coming back from VMware Explore. Kristen Martin and Cheryl Knight help get the word out on social media and in our newsletters. And Rob Hof is our editor in chief over at SiliconANGLE. Does some great editing for us. Thank you. All of you guys. Remember these episodes, they're all available as podcast, wherever you listen. All you got to do is just search "Breaking Analysis" podcast. I publish each week on wikibon.com and siliconangle.com. Or you can email me to get in touch david.vellante@siliconangle.com. You can DM me at dvellante or comment on my LinkedIn posts and please do check out etr.ai for the best survey data in the enterprise tech business. This is Dave Vellante for Erik Bradley and The Cube Insights powered by ETR. Thanks for watching. Be well. And we'll see you next time on "Breaking Analysis". (upbeat music)

>> From theCUBE studios in Palo Alto in Boston, bringing you data driven insights from theCUBE and ETR. This is "Breaking Analysis" with Dave Vellante. >> Snowflake Summit 2022 underscored that the ecosystem excitement which was once forming around Hadoop is being reborn, escalated and coalescing around Snowflake's data cloud. What was once seen as a simpler cloud data warehouse and good marketing with the data cloud is evolving rapidly with new workloads of vertical industry focus, data applications, monetization, and more. The question is, will the promise of data be fulfilled this time around, or is it same wine, new bottle? Hello, and welcome to this week's Wikibon CUBE Insights powered by ETR. In this "Breaking Analysis," we'll talk about the event, the announcements that Snowflake made that are of greatest interest, the major themes of the show, what was hype and what was real, the competition, and some concerns that remain in many parts of the ecosystem and pockets of customers. First let's look at the overall event. It was held at Caesars Forum. Not my favorite venue, but I'll tell you it was packed. Fire Marshall Full, as we sometimes say. Nearly 10,000 people attended the event. Here's Snowflake's CMO Denise Persson on theCUBE describing how this event has evolved. >> Yeah, two, three years ago, we were about 1800 people at a Hilton in San Francisco. We had about 40 partners attending. This week we're close to 10,000 attendees here. Almost 10,000 people online as well, and over over 200 partners here on the show floor. >> Now, those numbers from 2019 remind me of the early days of Hadoop World, which was put on by Cloudera but then Cloudera handed off the event to O'Reilly as this article that we've inserted, if you bring back that slide would say. The headline it almost got it right. Hadoop World was a failure, but it didn't have to be. Snowflake has filled the void created by O'Reilly when it first killed Hadoop World, and killed the name and then killed Strata. Now, ironically, the momentum and excitement from Hadoop's early days, it probably could have stayed with Cloudera but the beginning of the end was when they gave the conference over to O'Reilly. We can't imagine Frank Slootman handing the keys to the kingdom to a third party. Serious business was done at this event. I'm talking substantive deals. Salespeople from a host sponsor and the ecosystems that support these events, they love physical. They really don't like virtual because physical belly to belly means relationship building, pipeline, and deals. And that was blatantly obvious at this show. And in fairness, all theCUBE events that we've done year but this one was more vibrant because of its attendance and the action in the ecosystem. Ecosystem is a hallmark of a cloud company, and that's what Snowflake is. We asked Frank Slootman on theCUBE, was this ecosystem evolution by design or did Snowflake just kind of stumble into it? Here's what he said. >> Well, when you are a data clouding, you have data, people want to do things with that data. They don't want just run data operations, populate dashboards, run reports. Pretty soon they want to build applications and after they build applications, they want build businesses on it. So it goes on and on and on. So it drives your development to enable more and more functionality on that data cloud. Didn't start out that way, you know, we were very, very much focused on data operations. Then it becomes application development and then it becomes, hey, we're developing whole businesses on this platform. So similar to what happened to Facebook in many ways. >> So it sounds like it was maybe a little bit of both. The Facebook analogy is interesting because Facebook is a walled garden, as is Snowflake, but when you come into that garden, you have assurances that things are going to work in a very specific way because a set of standards and protocols is being enforced by a steward, i.e. Snowflake. This means things run better inside of Snowflake than if you try to do all the integration yourself. Now, maybe over time, an open source version of that will come out but if you wait for that, you're going to be left behind. That said, Snowflake has made moves to make its platform more accommodating to open source tooling in many of its announcements this week. Now, I'm not going to do a deep dive on the announcements. Matt Sulkins from Monte Carlo wrote a decent summary of the keynotes and a number of analysts like Sanjeev Mohan, Tony Bear and others are posting some deeper analysis on these innovations, and so we'll point to those. I'll say a few things though. Unistore extends the type of data that can live in the Snowflake data cloud. It's enabled by a new feature called hybrid tables, a new table type in Snowflake. One of the big knocks against Snowflake was it couldn't handle and transaction data. Several database companies are creating this notion of a hybrid where both analytic and transactional workloads can live in the same data store. Oracle's doing this for example, with MySQL HeatWave and there are many others. We saw Mongo earlier this month add an analytics capability to its transaction system. Mongo also added sequel, which was kind of interesting. Here's what Constellation Research analyst Doug Henschen said about Snowflake's moves into transaction data. Play the clip. >> Well with Unistore, they're reaching out and trying to bring transactional data in. Hey, don't limit this to analytical information and there's other ways to do that like CDC and streaming but they're very closely tying that again to that marketplace, with the idea of bring your data over here and you can monetize it. Don't just leave it in that transactional database. So another reach to a broader play across a big community that they're building. >> And you're also seeing Snowflake expand its workload types in its unique way and through Snowpark and its stream lit acquisition, enabling Python so that native apps can be built in the data cloud and benefit from all that structure and the features that Snowflake is built in. Hence that Facebook analogy, or maybe the App Store, the Apple App Store as I propose as well. Python support also widens the aperture for machine intelligence workloads. We asked Snowflake senior VP of product, Christian Kleinerman which announcements he thought were the most impactful. And despite the who's your favorite child nature of the question, he did answer. Here's what he said. >> I think the native applications is the one that looks like, eh, I don't know about it on the surface but he has the biggest potential to change everything. That's create an entire ecosystem of solutions for within a company or across companies that I don't know that we know what's possible. >> Snowflake also announced support for Apache Iceberg, which is a new open table format standard that's emerging. So you're seeing Snowflake respond to these concerns about its lack of openness, and they're building optionality into their cloud. They also showed some cost op optimization tools both from Snowflake itself and from the ecosystem, notably Capital One which launched a software business on top of Snowflake focused on optimizing cost and eventually the rollout data management capabilities, and all kinds of features that Snowflake announced that the show around governance, cross cloud, what we call super cloud, a new security workload, and they reemphasize their ability to read non-native on-prem data into Snowflake through partnerships with Dell and Pure and a lot more. Let's hear from some of the analysts that came on theCUBE this week at Snowflake Summit to see what they said about the announcements and their takeaways from the event. This is Dave Menninger, Sanjeev Mohan, and Tony Bear, roll the clip. >> Our research shows that the majority of organizations, the majority of people do not have access to analytics. And so a couple of the things they've announced I think address those or help to address those issues very directly. So Snowpark and support for Python and other languages is a way for organizations to embed analytics into different business processes. And so I think that'll be really beneficial to try and get analytics into more people's hands. And I also think that the native applications as part of the marketplace is another way to get applications into people's hands rather than just analytical tools. Because most people in the organization are not analysts. They're doing some line of business function. They're HR managers, they're marketing people, they're sales people, they're finance people, right? They're not sitting there mucking around in the data, they're doing a job and they need analytics in that job. >> Primarily, I think it is to contract this whole notion that once you move data into Snowflake, it's a proprietary format. So I think that's how it started but it's usually beneficial to the customers, to the users because now if you have large amount of data in paket files you can leave it on S3, but then you using the Apache Iceberg table format in Snowflake, you get all the benefits of Snowflake's optimizer. So for example, you get the micro partitioning, you get the metadata. And in a single query, you can join, you can do select from a Snowflake table union and select from an iceberg table and you can do store procedure, user defined function. So I think what they've done is extremely interesting. Iceberg by itself still does not have multi-table transactional capabilities. So if I'm running a workload, I might be touching 10 different tables. So if I use Apache Iceberg in a raw format, they don't have it, but Snowflake does. So the way I see it is Snowflake is adding more and more capabilities right into the database. So for example, they've gone ahead and added security and privacy. So you can now create policies and do even cell level masking, dynamic masking, but most organizations have more than Snowflake. So what we are starting to see all around here is that there's a whole series of data catalog companies, a bunch of companies that are doing dynamic data masking, security and governance, data observability which is not a space Snowflake has gone into. So there's a whole ecosystem of companies that is mushrooming. Although, you know, so they're using the native capabilities of Snowflake but they are at a level higher. So if you have a data lake and a cloud data warehouse and you have other like relational databases, you can run these cross platform capabilities in that layer. So that way, you know, Snowflake's done a great job of enabling that ecosystem. >> I think it's like the last mile, essentially. In other words, it's like, okay, you have folks that are basically that are very comfortable with Tableau but you do have developers who don't want to have to shell out to a separate tool. And so this is where Snowflake is essentially working to address that constituency. To Sanjeev's point, and I think part of it, this kind of plays into it is what makes this different from the Hadoop era is the fact that all these capabilities, you know, a lot of vendors are taking it very seriously to put this native. Now, obviously Snowflake acquired Streamlit. So we can expect that the Streamlit capabilities are going to be native. >> I want to share a little bit about the higher level thinking at Snowflake, here's a chart from Frank Slootman's keynote. It's his version of the modern data stack, if you will. Now, Snowflake of course, was built on the public cloud. If there were no AWS, there would be no Snowflake. Now, they're all about bringing data and live data and expanding the types of data, including structured, we just heard about that, unstructured, geospatial, and the list is going to continue on and on. Eventually I think it's going to bleed into the edge if we can figure out what to do with that edge data. Executing on new workloads is a big deal. They started with data sharing and they recently added security and they've essentially created a PaaS layer. We call it a SuperPaaS layer, if you will, to attract application developers. Snowflake has a developer-focused event coming up in November and they've extended the marketplace with 1300 native apps listings. And at the top, that's the holy grail, monetization. We always talk about building data products and we saw a lot of that at this event, very, very impressive and unique. Now here's the thing. There's a lot of talk in the press, in the Wall Street and the broader community about consumption-based pricing and concerns over Snowflake's visibility and its forecast and how analytics may be discretionary. But if you're a company building apps in Snowflake and monetizing like Capital One intends to do, and you're now selling in the marketplace, that is not discretionary, unless of course your costs are greater than your revenue for that service, in which case is going to fail anyway. But the point is we're entering a new error where data apps and data products are beginning to be built and Snowflake is attempting to make the data cloud the defacto place as to where you're going to build them. In our view they're well ahead in that journey. Okay, let's talk about some of the bigger themes that we heard at the event. Bringing apps to the data instead of moving the data to the apps, this was a constant refrain and one that certainly makes sense from a physics point of view. But having a single source of data that is discoverable, sharable and governed with increasingly robust ecosystem options, it doesn't have to be moved. Sometimes it may have to be moved if you're going across regions, but that's unique and a differentiator for Snowflake in our view. I mean, I'm yet to see a data ecosystem that is as rich and growing as fast as the Snowflake ecosystem. Monetization, we talked about that, industry clouds, financial services, healthcare, retail, and media, all front and center at the event. My understanding is that Frank Slootman was a major force behind this shift, this development and go to market focus on verticals. It's really an attempt, and he talked about this in his keynote to align with the customer mission ultimately align with their objectives which not surprisingly, are increasingly monetizing with data as a differentiating ingredient. We heard a ton about data mesh, there were numerous presentations about the topic. And I'll say this, if you map the seven pillars Snowflake talks about, Benoit Dageville talked about this in his keynote, but if you map those into Zhamak Dehghani's data mesh framework and the four principles, they align better than most of the data mesh washing that I've seen. The seven pillars, all data, all workloads, global architecture, self-managed, programmable, marketplace and governance. Those are the seven pillars that he talked about in his keynote. All data, well, maybe with hybrid tables that becomes more of a reality. Global architecture means the data is globally distributed. It's not necessarily physically in one place. Self-managed is key. Self-service infrastructure is one of Zhamak's four principles. And then inherent governance. Zhamak talks about computational, what I'll call automated governance, built in. And with all the talk about monetization, that aligns with the second principle which is data as product. So while it's not a pure hit and to its credit, by the way, Snowflake doesn't use data mesh in its messaging anymore. But by the way, its customers do, several customers talked about it. Geico, JPMC, and a number of other customers and partners are using the term and using it pretty closely to the concepts put forth by Zhamak Dehghani. But back to the point, they essentially, Snowflake that is, is building a proprietary system that substantially addresses some, if not many of the goals of data mesh. Okay, back to the list, supercloud, that's our term. We saw lots of examples of clouds on top of clouds that are architected to spin multiple clouds, not just run on individual clouds as separate services. And this includes Snowflake's data cloud itself but a number of ecosystem partners that are headed in a very similar direction. Snowflake still talks about data sharing but now it uses the term collaboration in its high level messaging, which is I think smart. Data sharing is kind of a geeky term. And also this is an attempt by Snowflake to differentiate from everyone else that's saying, hey, we do data sharing too. And finally Snowflake doesn't say data marketplace anymore. It's now marketplace, accounting for its application market. Okay, let's take a quick look at the competitive landscape via this ETR X-Y graph. Vertical access remembers net score or spending momentum and the x-axis is penetration, pervasiveness in the data center. That's what ETR calls overlap. Snowflake continues to lead on the vertical axis. They guide it conservatively last quarter, remember, so I wouldn't be surprised if that lofty height, even though it's well down from its earlier levels but I wouldn't be surprised if it ticks down again a bit in the July survey, which will be in the field shortly. Databricks is a key competitor obviously at a strong spending momentum, as you can see. We didn't draw it here but we usually draw that 40% line or red line at 40%, anything above that is considered elevated. So you can see Databricks is quite elevated. But it doesn't have the market presence of Snowflake. It didn't get to IPO during the bubble and it doesn't have nearly as deep and capable go-to market machinery. Now, they're getting better and they're getting some attention in the market, nonetheless. But as a private company, you just naturally, more people are aware of Snowflake. Some analysts, Tony Bear in particular, believe Mongo and Snowflake are on a bit of a collision course long term. I actually can see his point. You know, I mean, they're both platforms, they're both about data. It's long ways off, but you can see them sort of in a similar path. They talk about kind of similar aspirations and visions even though they're quite in different markets today but they're definitely participating in similar tam. The cloud players are probably the biggest or definitely the biggest partners and probably the biggest competitors to Snowflake. And then there's always Oracle. Doesn't have the spending velocity of the others but it's got strong market presence. It owns a cloud and it knows a thing about data and it definitely is a go-to market machine. Okay, we're going to end on some of the things that we heard in the ecosystem. 'Cause look, we've heard before how particular technology, enterprise data warehouse, data hubs, MDM, data lakes, Hadoop, et cetera. We're going to solve all of our data problems and of course they didn't. And in fact, sometimes they create more problems that allow vendors to push more incremental technology to solve the problems that they created. Like tools and platforms to clean up the no schema on right nature of data lakes or data swamps. But here are some of the things that I heard firsthand from some customers and partners. First thing is, they said to me that they're having a hard time keeping up sometimes with the pace of Snowflake. It reminds me of AWS in 2014, 2015 timeframe. You remember that fire hose of announcements which causes increased complexity for customers and partners. I talked to several customers that said, well, yeah this is all well and good but I still need skilled people to understand all these tools that I'm integrated in the ecosystem, the catalogs, the machine learning observability. A number of customers said, I just can't use one governance tool, I need multiple governance tools and a lot of other technologies as well, and they're concerned that that's going to drive up their cost and their complexity. I heard other concerns from the ecosystem that it used to be sort of clear as to where they could add value you know, when Snowflake was just a better data warehouse. But to point number one, they're either concerned that they'll be left behind or they're concerned that they'll be subsumed. Look, I mean, just like we tell AWS customers and partners, you got to move fast, you got to keep innovating. If you don't, you're going to be left. Either if your customer you're going to be left behind your competitor, or if you're a partner, somebody else is going to get there or AWS is going to solve the problem for you. Okay, and there were a number of skeptical practitioners, really thoughtful and experienced data pros that suggested that they've seen this movie before. That's hence the same wine, new bottle. Well, this time around I certainly hope not given all the energy and investment that is going into this ecosystem. And the fact is Snowflake is unquestionably making it easier to put data to work. They built on AWS so you didn't have to worry about provisioning, compute and storage and networking and scaling. Snowflake is optimizing its platform to take advantage of things like Graviton so you don't have to, and they're doing some of their own optimization tools. The ecosystem is building optimization tools so that's all good. And firm belief is the less expensive it is, the more data will get brought into the data cloud. And they're building a data platform on which their ecosystem can build and run data applications, aka data products without having to worry about all the hard work that needs to get done to make data discoverable, shareable, and governed. And unlike the last 10 years, you don't have to be a keeper and integrate all the animals in the Hadoop zoo. Okay, that's it for today, thanks for watching. Thanks to my colleague, Stephanie Chan who helps research "Breaking Analysis" topics. Sometimes Alex Myerson is on production and manages the podcasts. Kristin Martin and Cheryl Knight help get the word out on social and in our newsletters, and Rob Hof is our editor in chief over at Silicon, and Hailey does some wonderful editing, thanks to all. Remember, all these episodes are available as podcasts wherever you listen. All you got to do is search Breaking Analysis Podcasts. I publish each week on wikibon.com and siliconangle.com and you can email me at David.Vellante@siliconangle.com or DM me @DVellante. If you got something interesting, I'll respond. If you don't, I'm sorry I won't. Or comment on my LinkedIn post. Please check out etr.ai for the best survey data in the enterprise tech business. This is Dave Vellante for theCUBE Insights powered by ETR. Thanks for watching, and we'll see you next time. (upbeat music)

(upbeat music) >> The stampede to cloud and massive VC investments has led to the emergence of a new generation of object store based data lakes. And with them two important trends, actually three important trends. First, a new category that combines data lakes and data warehouses aka the lakehouse is emerged as a leading contender to be the data platform of the future. And this novelty touts the ability to address data engineering, data science, and data warehouse workloads on a single shared data platform. The other major trend we've seen is query engines and broader data fabric virtualization platforms have embraced NextGen data lakes as platforms for SQL centric business intelligence workloads, reducing, or somebody even claim eliminating the need for separate data warehouses. Pretty bold. However, cloud data warehouses have added complimentary technologies to bridge the gaps with lakehouses. And the third is many, if not most customers that are embracing the so-called data fabric or data mesh architectures. They're looking at data lakes as a fundamental component of their strategies, and they're trying to evolve them to be more capable, hence the interest in lakehouse, but at the same time, they don't want to, or can't abandon their data warehouse estate. As such we see a battle royale is brewing between cloud data warehouses and cloud lakehouses. Is it possible to do it all with one cloud center analytical data platform? Well, we're going to find out. My name is Dave Vellante and welcome to the data platform's power panel on theCUBE. Our next episode in a series where we gather some of the industry's top analysts to talk about one of our favorite topics, data. In today's session, we'll discuss trends, emerging options, and the trade offs of various approaches and we'll name names. Joining us today are Sanjeev Mohan, who's the principal at SanjMo, Tony Baers, principal at dbInsight. And Doug Henschen is the vice president and principal analyst at Constellation Research. Guys, welcome back to theCUBE. Great to see you again. >> Thank guys. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> So it's early June and we're gearing up with two major conferences, there's several database conferences, but two in particular that were very interested in, Snowflake Summit and Databricks Data and AI Summit. Doug let's start off with you and then Tony and Sanjeev, if you could kindly weigh in. Where did this all start, Doug? The notion of lakehouse. And let's talk about what exactly we mean by lakehouse. Go ahead. >> Yeah, well you nailed it in your intro. One platform to address BI data science, data engineering, fewer platforms, less cost, less complexity, very compelling. You can credit Databricks for coining the term lakehouse back in 2020, but it's really a much older idea. You can go back to Cloudera introducing their Impala database in 2012. That was a database on top of Hadoop. And indeed in that last decade, by the middle of that last decade, there were several SQL on Hadoop products, open standards like Apache Drill. And at the same time, the database vendors were trying to respond to this interest in machine learning and the data science. So they were adding SQL extensions, the likes Hudi and Vertical we're adding SQL extensions to support the data science. But then later in that decade with the shift to cloud and object storage, you saw the vendor shift to this whole cloud, and object storage idea. So you have in the database camp Snowflake introduce Snowpark to try to address the data science needs. They introduced that in 2020 and last year they announced support for Python. You also had Oracle, SAP jumped on this lakehouse idea last year, supporting both the lake and warehouse single vendor, not necessarily quite single platform. Google very recently also jumped on the bandwagon. And then you also mentioned, the SQL engine camp, the Dremios, the Ahanas, the Starbursts, really doing two things, a fabric for distributed access to many data sources, but also very firmly planning that idea that you can just have the lake and we'll help you do the BI workloads on that. And then of course, the data lake camp with the Databricks and Clouderas providing a warehouse style deployments on top of their lake platforms. >> Okay, thanks, Doug. I'd be remiss those of you who me know that I typically write my own intros. This time my colleagues fed me a lot of that material. So thank you. You guys make it easy. But Tony, give us your thoughts on this intro. >> Right. Well, I very much agree with both of you, which may not make for the most exciting television in terms of that it has been an evolution just like Doug said. I mean, for instance, just to give an example when Teradata bought AfterData was initially seen as a hardware platform play. In the end, it was basically, it was all those after functions that made a lot of sort of big data analytics accessible to SQL. (clears throat) And so what I really see just in a more simpler definition or functional definition, the data lakehouse is really an attempt by the data lake folks to make the data lake friendlier territory to the SQL folks, and also to get into friendly territory, to all the data stewards, who are basically concerned about the sprawl and the lack of control in governance in the data lake. So it's really kind of a continuing of an ongoing trend that being said, there's no action without counter action. And of course, at the other end of the spectrum, we also see a lot of the data warehouses starting to edit things like in database machine learning. So they're certainly not surrendering without a fight. Again, as Doug was mentioning, this has been part of a continual blending of platforms that we've seen over the years that we first saw in the Hadoop years with SQL on Hadoop and data warehouses starting to reach out to cloud storage or should say the HDFS and then with the cloud then going cloud native and therefore trying to break the silos down even further. >> Now, thank you. And Sanjeev, data lakes, when we first heard about them, there were such a compelling name, and then we realized all the problems associated with them. So pick it up from there. What would you add to Doug and Tony? >> I would say, these are excellent points that Doug and Tony have brought to light. The concept of lakehouse was going on to your point, Dave, a long time ago, long before the tone was invented. For example, in Uber, Uber was trying to do a mix of Hadoop and Vertical because what they really needed were transactional capabilities that Hadoop did not have. So they weren't calling it the lakehouse, they were using multiple technologies, but now they're able to collapse it into a single data store that we call lakehouse. Data lakes, excellent at batch processing large volumes of data, but they don't have the real time capabilities such as change data capture, doing inserts and updates. So this is why lakehouse has become so important because they give us these transactional capabilities. >> Great. So I'm interested, the name is great, lakehouse. The concept is powerful, but I get concerned that it's a lot of marketing hype behind it. So I want to examine that a bit deeper. How mature is the concept of lakehouse? Are there practical examples that really exist in the real world that are driving business results for practitioners? Tony, maybe you could kick that off. >> Well, put it this way. I think what's interesting is that both data lakes and data warehouse that each had to extend themselves. To believe the Databricks hype it's that this was just a natural extension of the data lake. In point of fact, Databricks had to go outside its core technology of Spark to make the lakehouse possible. And it's a very similar type of thing on the part with data warehouse folks, in terms of that they've had to go beyond SQL, In the case of Databricks. There have been a number of incremental improvements to Delta lake, to basically make the table format more performative, for instance. But the other thing, I think the most dramatic change in all that is in their SQL engine and they had to essentially pretty much abandon Spark SQL because it really, in off itself Spark SQL is essentially stop gap solution. And if they wanted to really address that crowd, they had to totally reinvent SQL or at least their SQL engine. And so Databricks SQL is not Spark SQL, it is not Spark, it's basically SQL that it's adapted to run in a Spark environment, but the underlying engine is C++, it's not scale or anything like that. So Databricks had to take a major detour outside of its core platform to do this. So to answer your question, this is not mature because these are all basically kind of, even though the idea of blending platforms has been going on for well over a decade, I would say that the current iteration is still fairly immature. And in the cloud, I could see a further evolution of this because if you think through cloud native architecture where you're essentially abstracting compute from data, there is no reason why, if let's say you are dealing with say, the same basically data targets say cloud storage, cloud object storage that you might not apportion the task to different compute engines. And so therefore you could have, for instance, let's say you're Google, you could have BigQuery, perform basically the types of the analytics, the SQL analytics that would be associated with the data warehouse and you could have BigQuery ML that does some in database machine learning, but at the same time for another part of the query, which might involve, let's say some deep learning, just for example, you might go out to let's say the serverless spark service or the data proc. And there's no reason why Google could not blend all those into a coherent offering that's basically all triggered through microservices. And I just gave Google as an example, if you could generalize that with all the other cloud or all the other third party vendors. So I think we're still very early in the game in terms of maturity of data lakehouses. >> Thanks, Tony. So Sanjeev, is this all hype? What are your thoughts? >> It's not hype, but completely agree. It's not mature yet. Lakehouses have still a lot of work to do, so what I'm now starting to see is that the world is dividing into two camps. On one hand, there are people who don't want to deal with the operational aspects of vast amounts of data. They are the ones who are going for BigQuery, Redshift, Snowflake, Synapse, and so on because they want the platform to handle all the data modeling, access control, performance enhancements, but these are trade off. If you go with these platforms, then you are giving up on vendor neutrality. On the other side are those who have engineering skills. They want the independence. In other words, they don't want vendor lock in. They want to transform their data into any number of use cases, especially data science, machine learning use case. What they want is agility via open file formats using any compute engine. So why do I say lakehouses are not mature? Well, cloud data warehouses they provide you an excellent user experience. That is the main reason why Snowflake took off. If you have thousands of cables, it takes minutes to get them started, uploaded into your warehouse and start experimentation. Table formats are far more resonating with the community than file formats. But once the cost goes up of cloud data warehouse, then the organization start exploring lakehouses. But the problem is lakehouses still need to do a lot of work on metadata. Apache Hive was a fantastic first attempt at it. Even today Apache Hive is still very strong, but it's all technical metadata and it has so many different restrictions. That's why we see Databricks is investing into something called Unity Catalog. Hopefully we'll hear more about Unity Catalog at the end of the month. But there's a second problem. I just want to mention, and that is lack of standards. All these open source vendors, they're running, what I call ego projects. You see on LinkedIn, they're constantly battling with each other, but end user doesn't care. End user wants a problem to be solved. They want to use Trino, Dremio, Spark from EMR, Databricks, Ahana, DaaS, Frink, Athena. But the problem is that we don't have common standards. >> Right. Thanks. So Doug, I worry sometimes. I mean, I look at the space, we've debated for years, best of breed versus the full suite. You see AWS with whatever, 12 different plus data stores and different APIs and primitives. You got Oracle putting everything into its database. It's actually done some interesting things with MySQL HeatWave, so maybe there's proof points there, but Snowflake really good at data warehouse, simplifying data warehouse. Databricks, really good at making lakehouses actually more functional. Can one platform do it all? >> Well in a word, I can't be best at breed at all things. I think the upshot of and cogen analysis from Sanjeev there, the database, the vendors coming out of the database tradition, they excel at the SQL. They're extending it into data science, but when it comes to unstructured data, data science, ML AI often a compromise, the data lake crowd, the Databricks and such. They've struggled to completely displace the data warehouse when it really gets to the tough SLAs, they acknowledge that there's still a role for the warehouse. Maybe you can size down the warehouse and offload some of the BI workloads and maybe and some of these SQL engines, good for ad hoc, minimize data movement. But really when you get to the deep service level, a requirement, the high concurrency, the high query workloads, you end up creating something that's warehouse like. >> Where do you guys think this market is headed? What's going to take hold? Which projects are going to fade away? You got some things in Apache projects like Hudi and Iceberg, where do they fit Sanjeev? Do you have any thoughts on that? >> So thank you, Dave. So I feel that table formats are starting to mature. There is a lot of work that's being done. We will not have a single product or single platform. We'll have a mixture. So I see a lot of Apache Iceberg in the news. Apache Iceberg is really innovating. Their focus is on a table format, but then Delta and Apache Hudi are doing a lot of deep engineering work. For example, how do you handle high concurrency when there are multiple rights going on? Do you version your Parquet files or how do you do your upcerts basically? So different focus, at the end of the day, the end user will decide what is the right platform, but we are going to have multiple formats living with us for a long time. >> Doug is Iceberg in your view, something that's going to address some of those gaps in standards that Sanjeev was talking about earlier? >> Yeah, Delta lake, Hudi, Iceberg, they all address this need for consistency and scalability, Delta lake open technically, but open for access. I don't hear about Delta lakes in any worlds, but Databricks, hearing a lot of buzz about Apache Iceberg. End users want an open performance standard. And most recently Google embraced Iceberg for its recent a big lake, their stab at having supporting both lakes and warehouses on one conjoined platform. >> And Tony, of course, you remember the early days of the sort of big data movement you had MapR was the most closed. You had Horton works the most open. You had Cloudera in between. There was always this kind of contest as to who's the most open. Does that matter? Are we going to see a repeat of that here? >> I think it's spheres of influence, I think, and Doug very much was kind of referring to this. I would call it kind of like the MongoDB syndrome, which is that you have... and I'm talking about MongoDB before they changed their license, open source project, but very much associated with MongoDB, which basically, pretty much controlled most of the contributions made decisions. And I think Databricks has the same iron cloud hold on Delta lake, but still the market is pretty much associated Delta lake as the Databricks, open source project. I mean, Iceberg is probably further advanced than Hudi in terms of mind share. And so what I see that's breaking down to is essentially, basically the Databricks open source versus the everything else open source, the community open source. So I see it's a very similar type of breakdown that I see repeating itself here. >> So by the way, Mongo has a conference next week, another data platform is kind of not really relevant to this discussion totally. But in the sense it is because there's a lot of discussion on earnings calls these last couple of weeks about consumption and who's exposed, obviously people are concerned about Snowflake's consumption model. Mongo is maybe less exposed because Atlas is prominent in the portfolio, blah, blah, blah. But I wanted to bring up the little bit of controversy that we saw come out of the Snowflake earnings call, where the ever core analyst asked Frank Klutman about discretionary spend. And Frank basically said, look, we're not discretionary. We are deeply operationalized. Whereas he kind of poo-pooed the lakehouse or the data lake, et cetera, saying, oh yeah, data scientists will pull files out and play with them. That's really not our business. Do any of you have comments on that? Help us swing through that controversy. Who wants to take that one? >> Let's put it this way. The SQL folks are from Venus and the data scientists are from Mars. So it means it really comes down to it, sort that type of perception. The fact is, is that, traditionally with analytics, it was very SQL oriented and that basically the quants were kind of off in their corner, where they're using SaaS or where they're using Teradata. It's really a great leveler today, which is that, I mean basic Python it's become arguably one of the most popular programming languages, depending on what month you're looking at, at the title index. And of course, obviously SQL is, as I tell the MongoDB folks, SQL is not going away. You have a large skills base out there. And so basically I see this breaking down to essentially, you're going to have each group that's going to have its own natural preferences for its home turf. And the fact that basically, let's say the Python and scale of folks are using Databricks does not make them any less operational or machine critical than the SQL folks. >> Anybody else want to chime in on that one? >> Yeah, I totally agree with that. Python support in Snowflake is very nascent with all of Snowpark, all of the things outside of SQL, they're very much relying on partners too and make things possible and make data science possible. And it's very early days. I think the bottom line, what we're going to see is each of these camps is going to keep working on doing better at the thing that they don't do today, or they're new to, but they're not going to nail it. They're not going to be best of breed on both sides. So the SQL centric companies and shops are going to do more data science on their database centric platform. That data science driven companies might be doing more BI on their leagues with those vendors and the companies that have highly distributed data, they're going to add fabrics, and maybe offload more of their BI onto those engines, like Dremio and Starburst. >> So I've asked you this before, but I'll ask you Sanjeev. 'Cause Snowflake and Databricks are such great examples 'cause you have the data engineering crowd trying to go into data warehousing and you have the data warehousing guys trying to go into the lake territory. Snowflake has $5 billion in the balance sheet and I've asked you before, I ask you again, doesn't there has to be a semantic layer between these two worlds? Does Snowflake go out and do M&A and maybe buy ad scale or a data mirror? Or is that just sort of a bandaid? What are your thoughts on that Sanjeev? >> I think semantic layer is the metadata. The business metadata is extremely important. At the end of the day, the business folks, they'd rather go to the business metadata than have to figure out, for example, like let's say, I want to update somebody's email address and we have a lot of overhead with data residency laws and all that. I want my platform to give me the business metadata so I can write my business logic without having to worry about which database, which location. So having that semantic layer is extremely important. In fact, now we are taking it to the next level. Now we are saying that it's not just a semantic layer, it's all my KPIs, all my calculations. So how can I make those calculations independent of the compute engine, independent of the BI tool and make them fungible. So more disaggregation of the stack, but it gives us more best of breed products that the customers have to worry about. >> So I want to ask you about the stack, the modern data stack, if you will. And we always talk about injecting machine intelligence, AI into applications, making them more data driven. But when you look at the application development stack, it's separate, the database is tends to be separate from the data and analytics stack. Do those two worlds have to come together in the modern data world? And what does that look like organizationally? >> So organizationally even technically I think it is starting to happen. Microservices architecture was a first attempt to bring the application and the data world together, but they are fundamentally different things. For example, if an application crashes, that's horrible, but Kubernetes will self heal and it'll bring the application back up. But if a database crashes and corrupts your data, we have a huge problem. So that's why they have traditionally been two different stacks. They are starting to come together, especially with data ops, for instance, versioning of the way we write business logic. It used to be, a business logic was highly embedded into our database of choice, but now we are disaggregating that using GitHub, CICD the whole DevOps tool chain. So data is catching up to the way applications are. >> We also have databases, that trans analytical databases that's a little bit of what the story is with MongoDB next week with adding more analytical capabilities. But I think companies that talk about that are always careful to couch it as operational analytics, not the warehouse level workloads. So we're making progress, but I think there's always going to be, or there will long be a separate analytical data platform. >> Until data mesh takes over. (all laughing) Not opening a can of worms. >> Well, but wait, I know it's out of scope here, but wouldn't data mesh say, hey, do take your best of breed to Doug's earlier point. You can't be best of breed at everything, wouldn't data mesh advocate, data lakes do your data lake thing, data warehouse, do your data lake, then you're just a node on the mesh. (Tony laughs) Now you need separate data stores and you need separate teams. >> To my point. >> I think, I mean, put it this way. (laughs) Data mesh itself is a logical view of the world. The data mesh is not necessarily on the lake or on the warehouse. I think for me, the fear there is more in terms of, the silos of governance that could happen and the silo views of the world, how we redefine. And that's why and I want to go back to something what Sanjeev said, which is that it's going to be raising the importance of the semantic layer. Now does Snowflake that opens a couple of Pandora's boxes here, which is one, does Snowflake dare go into that space or do they risk basically alienating basically their partner ecosystem, which is a key part of their whole appeal, which is best of breed. They're kind of the same situation that Informatica was where in the early 2000s, when Informatica briefly flirted with analytic applications and realized that was not a good idea, need to redouble down on their core, which was data integration. The other thing though, that raises the importance of and this is where the best of breed comes in, is the data fabric. My contention is that and whether you use employee data mesh practice or not, if you do employee data mesh, you need data fabric. If you deploy data fabric, you don't necessarily need to practice data mesh. But data fabric at its core and admittedly it's a category that's still very poorly defined and evolving, but at its core, we're talking about a common meta data back plane, something that we used to talk about with master data management, this would be something that would be more what I would say basically, mutable, that would be more evolving, basically using, let's say, machine learning to kind of, so that we don't have to predefine rules or predefine what the world looks like. But so I think in the long run, what this really means is that whichever way we implement on whichever physical platform we implement, we need to all be speaking the same metadata language. And I think at the end of the day, regardless of whether it's a lake, warehouse or a lakehouse, we need common metadata. >> Doug, can I come back to something you pointed out? That those talking about bringing analytic and transaction databases together, you had talked about operationalizing those and the caution there. Educate me on MySQL HeatWave. I was surprised when Oracle put so much effort in that, and you may or may not be familiar with it, but a lot of folks have talked about that. Now it's got nowhere in the market, that no market share, but a lot of we've seen these benchmarks from Oracle. How real is that bringing together those two worlds and eliminating ETL? >> Yeah, I have to defer on that one. That's my colleague, Holger Mueller. He wrote the report on that. He's way deep on it and I'm not going to mock him. >> I wonder if that is something, how real that is or if it's just Oracle marketing, anybody have any thoughts on that? >> I'm pretty familiar with HeatWave. It's essentially Oracle doing what, I mean, there's kind of a parallel with what Google's doing with AlloyDB. It's an operational database that will have some embedded analytics. And it's also something which I expect to start seeing with MongoDB. And I think basically, Doug and Sanjeev were kind of referring to this before about basically kind of like the operational analytics, that are basically embedded within an operational database. The idea here is that the last thing you want to do with an operational database is slow it down. So you're not going to be doing very complex deep learning or anything like that, but you might be doing things like classification, you might be doing some predictives. In other words, we've just concluded a transaction with this customer, but was it less than what we were expecting? What does that mean in terms of, is this customer likely to turn? I think we're going to be seeing a lot of that. And I think that's what a lot of what MySQL HeatWave is all about. Whether Oracle has any presence in the market now it's still a pretty new announcement, but the other thing that kind of goes against Oracle, (laughs) that they had to battle against is that even though they own MySQL and run the open source project, everybody else, in terms of the actual commercial implementation it's associated with everybody else. And the popular perception has been that MySQL has been basically kind of like a sidelight for Oracle. And so it's on Oracles shoulders to prove that they're damn serious about it. >> There's no coincidence that MariaDB was launched the day that Oracle acquired Sun. Sanjeev, I wonder if we could come back to a topic that we discussed earlier, which is this notion of consumption, obviously Wall Street's very concerned about it. Snowflake dropped prices last week. I've always felt like, hey, the consumption model is the right model. I can dial it down in when I need to, of course, the street freaks out. What are your thoughts on just pricing, the consumption model? What's the right model for companies, for customers? >> Consumption model is here to stay. What I would like to see, and I think is an ideal situation and actually plays into the lakehouse concept is that, I have my data in some open format, maybe it's Parquet or CSV or JSON, Avro, and I can bring whatever engine is the best engine for my workloads, bring it on, pay for consumption, and then shut it down. And by the way, that could be Cloudera. We don't talk about Cloudera very much, but it could be one business unit wants to use Athena. Another business unit wants to use some other Trino let's say or Dremio. So every business unit is working on the same data set, see that's critical, but that data set is maybe in their VPC and they bring any compute engine, you pay for the use, shut it down. That then you're getting value and you're only paying for consumption. It's not like, I left a cluster running by mistake, so there have to be guardrails. The reason FinOps is so big is because it's very easy for me to run a Cartesian joint in the cloud and get a $10,000 bill. >> This looks like it's been a sort of a victim of its own success in some ways, they made it so easy to spin up single note instances, multi note instances. And back in the day when compute was scarce and costly, those database engines optimized every last bit so they could get as much workload as possible out of every instance. Today, it's really easy to spin up a new node, a new multi node cluster. So that freedom has meant many more nodes that aren't necessarily getting that utilization. So Snowflake has been doing a lot to add reporting, monitoring, dashboards around the utilization of all the nodes and multi node instances that have spun up. And meanwhile, we're seeing some of the traditional on-prem databases that are moving into the cloud, trying to offer that freedom. And I think they're going to have that same discovery that the cost surprises are going to follow as they make it easy to spin up new instances. >> Yeah, a lot of money went into this market over the last decade, separating compute from storage, moving to the cloud. I'm glad you mentioned Cloudera Sanjeev, 'cause they got it all started, the kind of big data movement. We don't talk about them that much. Sometimes I wonder if it's because when they merged Hortonworks and Cloudera, they dead ended both platforms, but then they did invest in a more modern platform. But what's the future of Cloudera? What are you seeing out there? >> Cloudera has a good product. I have to say the problem in our space is that there're way too many companies, there's way too much noise. We are expecting the end users to parse it out or we expecting analyst firms to boil it down. So I think marketing becomes a big problem. As far as technology is concerned, I think Cloudera did turn their selves around and Tony, I know you, you talked to them quite frequently. I think they have quite a comprehensive offering for a long time actually. They've created Kudu, so they got operational, they have Hadoop, they have an operational data warehouse, they're migrated to the cloud. They are in hybrid multi-cloud environment. Lot of cloud data warehouses are not hybrid. They're only in the cloud. >> Right. I think what Cloudera has done the most successful has been in the transition to the cloud and the fact that they're giving their customers more OnRamps to it, more hybrid OnRamps. So I give them a lot of credit there. They're also have been trying to position themselves as being the most price friendly in terms of that we will put more guardrails and governors on it. I mean, part of that could be spin. But on the other hand, they don't have the same vested interest in compute cycles as say, AWS would have with EMR. That being said, yes, Cloudera does it, I think its most powerful appeal so of that, it almost sounds in a way, I don't want to cast them as a legacy system. But the fact is they do have a huge landed legacy on-prem and still significant potential to land and expand that to the cloud. That being said, even though Cloudera is multifunction, I think it certainly has its strengths and weaknesses. And the fact this is that yes, Cloudera has an operational database or an operational data store with a kind of like the outgrowth of age base, but Cloudera is still based, primarily known for the deep analytics, the operational database nobody's going to buy Cloudera or Cloudera data platform strictly for the operational database. They may use it as an add-on, just in the same way that a lot of customers have used let's say Teradata basically to do some machine learning or let's say, Snowflake to parse through JSON. Again, it's not an indictment or anything like that, but the fact is obviously they do have their strengths and their weaknesses. I think their greatest opportunity is with their existing base because that base has a lot invested and vested. And the fact is they do have a hybrid path that a lot of the others lack. >> And of course being on the quarterly shock clock was not a good place to be under the microscope for Cloudera and now they at least can refactor the business accordingly. I'm glad you mentioned hybrid too. We saw Snowflake last month, did a deal with Dell whereby non-native Snowflake data could access on-prem object store from Dell. They announced a similar thing with pure storage. What do you guys make of that? Is that just... How significant will that be? Will customers actually do that? I think they're using either materialized views or extended tables. >> There are data rated and residency requirements. There are desires to have these platforms in your own data center. And finally they capitulated, I mean, Frank Klutman is famous for saying to be very focused and earlier, not many months ago, they called the going on-prem as a distraction, but clearly there's enough demand and certainly government contracts any company that has data residency requirements, it's a real need. So they finally addressed it. >> Yeah, I'll bet dollars to donuts, there was an EBC session and some big customer said, if you don't do this, we ain't doing business with you. And that was like, okay, we'll do it. >> So Dave, I have to say, earlier on you had brought this point, how Frank Klutman was poo-pooing data science workloads. On your show, about a year or so ago, he said, we are never going to on-prem. He burnt that bridge. (Tony laughs) That was on your show. >> I remember exactly the statement because it was interesting. He said, we're never going to do the halfway house. And I think what he meant is we're not going to bring the Snowflake architecture to run on-prem because it defeats the elasticity of the cloud. So this was kind of a capitulation in a way. But I think it still preserves his original intent sort of, I don't know. >> The point here is that every vendor will poo-poo whatever they don't have until they do have it. >> Yes. >> And then it'd be like, oh, we are all in, we've always been doing this. We have always supported this and now we are doing it better than others. >> Look, it was the same type of shock wave that we felt basically when AWS at the last moment at one of their reinvents, oh, by the way, we're going to introduce outposts. And the analyst group is typically pre briefed about a week or two ahead under NDA and that was not part of it. And when they dropped, they just casually dropped that in the analyst session. It's like, you could have heard the sound of lots of analysts changing their diapers at that point. >> (laughs) I remember that. And a props to Andy Jassy who once, many times actually told us, never say never when it comes to AWS. So guys, I know we got to run. We got some hard stops. Maybe you could each give us your final thoughts, Doug start us off and then-- >> Sure. Well, we've got the Snowflake Summit coming up. I'll be looking for customers that are really doing data science, that are really employing Python through Snowflake, through Snowpark. And then a couple weeks later, we've got Databricks with their Data and AI Summit in San Francisco. I'll be looking for customers that are really doing considerable BI workloads. Last year I did a market overview of this analytical data platform space, 14 vendors, eight of them claim to support lakehouse, both sides of the camp, Databricks customer had 32, their top customer that they could site was unnamed. It had 32 concurrent users doing 15,000 queries per hour. That's good but it's not up to the most demanding BI SQL workloads. And they acknowledged that and said, they need to keep working that. Snowflake asked for their biggest data science customer, they cited Kabura, 400 terabytes, 8,500 users, 400,000 data engineering jobs per day. I took the data engineering job to be probably SQL centric, ETL style transformation work. So I want to see the real use of the Python, how much Snowpark has grown as a way to support data science. >> Great. Tony. >> Actually of all things. And certainly, I'll also be looking for similar things in what Doug is saying, but I think sort of like, kind of out of left field, I'm interested to see what MongoDB is going to start to say about operational analytics, 'cause I mean, they're into this conquer the world strategy. We can be all things to all people. Okay, if that's the case, what's going to be a case with basically, putting in some inline analytics, what are you going to be doing with your query engine? So that's actually kind of an interesting thing we're looking for next week. >> Great. Sanjeev. >> So I'll be at MongoDB world, Snowflake and Databricks and very interested in seeing, but since Tony brought up MongoDB, I see that even the databases are shifting tremendously. They are addressing both the hashtag use case online, transactional and analytical. I'm also seeing that these databases started in, let's say in case of MySQL HeatWave, as relational or in MongoDB as document, but now they've added graph, they've added time series, they've added geospatial and they just keep adding more and more data structures and really making these databases multifunctional. So very interesting. >> It gets back to our discussion of best of breed, versus all in one. And it's likely Mongo's path or part of their strategy of course, is through developers. They're very developer focused. So we'll be looking for that. And guys, I'll be there as well. I'm hoping that we maybe have some extra time on theCUBE, so please stop by and we can maybe chat a little bit. Guys as always, fantastic. Thank you so much, Doug, Tony, Sanjeev, and let's do this again. >> It's been a pleasure. >> All right and thank you for watching. This is Dave Vellante for theCUBE and the excellent analyst. We'll see you next time. (upbeat music)

(upbeat music) >> Once a staid and boring business dominated by IBM, Oracle, and at the time newcomer Microsoft, along with a handful of wannabes, the database business has exploded in the past decade and has become a staple of financial excellence, customer experience, analytic advantage, competitive strategy, growth initiatives, visualizations, not to mention compliance, security, privacy and dozens of other important use cases and initiatives. And on the vendor's side of the house, we've seen the rapid ascendancy of cloud databases. Most notably from Snowflake, whose massive raises leading up to its IPO in late 2020 sparked a spate of interest and VC investment in the separation of compute and storage and all that elastic resource stuff in the cloud. The company joined AWS, Azure and Google to popularize cloud databases, which have become a linchpin of competitive strategies for technology suppliers. And if I get you to put your data in my database and in my cloud, and I keep innovating, I'm going to build a moat and achieve a hugely attractive lifetime customer value in a really amazing marginal economics dynamic that is going to fund my future. And I'll be able to sell other adjacent services, not just compute and storage, but machine learning and inference and training and all kinds of stuff, dozens of lucrative cloud offerings. Meanwhile, the database leader, Oracle has invested massive amounts of money to maintain its lead. It's building on its position as the king of mission critical workloads and making typical Oracle like claims against the competition. Most were recently just yesterday with another announcement around MySQL HeatWave. An extension of MySQL that is compatible with on-premises MySQLs and is setting new standards in price performance. We're seeing a dramatic divergence in strategies across the database spectrum. On the far left, we see Amazon with more than a dozen database offerings each with its own API and primitives. AWS is taking a right tool for the right job approach, often building on open source platforms and creating services that it offers to customers to solve very specific problems for developers. And on the other side of the line, we see Oracle, which is taking the Swiss Army Knife approach, converging database functionality, enabling analytic and transactional workloads to run in the same data store, eliminating the need to ETL, at the same time adding capabilities into its platform like automation and machine learning. Welcome to this database Power Panel. My name is Dave Vellante, and I'm so excited to bring together some of the most respected industry analyst in the community. Today we're going to assess what's happening in the market. We're going to dig into the competitive landscape and explore the future of database and database platforms and decode what it means to customers. Let me take a moment to welcome our guest analyst today. Matt Kimball is a vice president and principal analysts at Moor Insights and Strategy, Matt. He knows products, he knows industry, he's got real world IT expertise, and he's got all the angles 25 plus years of experience in all kinds of great background. Matt, welcome. Thanks very much for coming on theCUBE. Holgar Mueller, friend of theCUBE, vice president and principal analyst at Constellation Research in depth knowledge on applications, application development, knows developers. He's worked at SAP and Oracle. And then Bob Evans is Chief Content Officer and co-founder of the Acceleration Economy, founder and principle of Cloud Wars. Covers all kinds of industry topics and great insights. He's got awesome videos, these three minute hits. If you haven't seen 'em, checking them out, knows cloud companies, his Cloud Wars minutes are fantastic. And then of course, Marc Staimer is the founder of Dragon Slayer Research. A frequent contributor and guest analyst at Wikibon. He's got a wide ranging knowledge across IT products, knows technology really well, can go deep. And then of course, Ron Westfall, Senior Analyst and Director Research Director at Futurum Research, great all around product trends knowledge. Can take, you know, technical dives and really understands competitive angles, knows Redshift, Snowflake, and many others. Gents, thanks so much for taking the time to join us in theCube today. It's great to have you on, good to see you. >> Good to be here, thanks for having us. >> Thanks, Dave. >> All right, let's start with an around the horn and briefly, if each of you would describe, you know, anything I missed in your areas of expertise and then you answer the following question, how would you describe the state of the database, state of platform market today? Matt Kimball, please start. >> Oh, I hate going first, but that it's okay. How would I describe the world today? I would just in one sentence, I would say, I'm glad I'm not in IT anymore, right? So, you know, it is a complex and dangerous world out there. And I don't envy IT folks I'd have to support, you know, these modernization and transformation efforts that are going on within the enterprise. It used to be, you mentioned it, Dave, you would argue about IBM versus Oracle versus this newcomer in the database space called Microsoft. And don't forget Sybase back in the day, but you know, now it's not just, which SQL vendor am I going to go with? It's all of these different, divergent data types that have to be taken, they have to be merged together, synthesized. And somehow I have to do that cleanly and use this to drive strategic decisions for my business. That is not easy. So, you know, you have to look at it from the perspective of the business user. It's great for them because as a DevOps person, or as an analyst, I have so much flexibility and I have this thing called the cloud now where I can go get services immediately. As an IT person or a DBA, I am calling up prevention hotlines 24 hours a day, because I don't know how I'm going to be able to support the business. And as an Oracle or as an Oracle or a Microsoft or some of the cloud providers and cloud databases out there, I'm licking my chops because, you know, my market is expanding and expanding every day. >> Great, thank you for that, Matt. Holgar, how do you see the world these days? You always have a good perspective on things, share with us. >> Well, I think it's the best time to be in IT, I'm not sure what Matt is talking about. (laughing) It's easier than ever, right? The direction is going to cloud. Kubernetes has won, Google has the best AI for now, right? So things are easier than ever before. You made commitments for five plus years on hardware, networking and so on premise, and I got gray hair about worrying it was the wrong decision. No, just kidding. But you kind of both sides, just to be controversial, make it interesting, right. So yeah, no, I think the interesting thing specifically with databases, right? We have this big suite versus best of breed, right? Obviously innovation, like you mentioned with Snowflake and others happening in the cloud, the cloud vendors server, where to save of their databases. And then we have one of the few survivors of the old guard as Evans likes to call them is Oracle who's doing well, both their traditional database. And now, which is really interesting, remarkable from that because Oracle it was always the power of one, have one database, add more to it, make it what I call the universal database. And now this new HeatWave offering is coming and MySQL open source side. So they're getting the second (indistinct) right? So it's interesting that older players, traditional players who still are in the market are diversifying their offerings. Something we don't see so much from the traditional tools from Oracle on the Microsoft side or the IBM side these days. >> Great, thank you Holgar. Bob Evans, you've covered this business for a while. You've worked at, you know, a number of different outlets and companies and you cover the competition, how do you see things? >> Dave, you know, the other angle to look at this from is from the customer side, right? You got now CEOs who are any sort of business across all sorts of industries, and they understand that their future success is going to be dependent on their ability to become a digital company, to understand data, to use it the right way. So as you outline Dave, I think in your intro there, it is a fantastic time to be in the database business. And I think we've got a lot of new buyers and influencers coming in. They don't know all this history about IBM and Microsoft and Oracle and you know, whoever else. So I think they're going to take a long, hard look, Dave, at some of these results and who is able to help these companies not serve up the best technology, but who's going to be able to help their business move into the digital future. So it's a fascinating time now from every perspective. >> Great points, Bob. I mean, digital transformation has gone from buzzword to imperative. Mr. Staimer, how do you see things? >> I see things a little bit differently than my peers here in that I see the database market being segmented. There's all the different kinds of databases that people are looking at for different kinds of data, and then there is databases in the cloud. And so database as cloud service, I view very differently than databases because the traditional way of implementing a database is changing and it's changing rapidly. So one of the premises that you stated earlier on was that you viewed Oracle as a database company. I don't view Oracle as a database company anymore. I view Oracle as a cloud company that happens to have a significant expertise and specialty in databases, and they still sell database software in the traditional way, but ultimately they're a cloud company. So database cloud services from my point of view is a very distinct market from databases. >> Okay, well, you gave us some good meat on the bone to talk about that. Last but not least-- >> Dave did Marc, just say Oracle's a cloud company? >> Yeah. (laughing) Take away the database, it would be interesting to have that discussion, but let's let Ron jump in here. Ron, give us your take. >> That's a great segue. I think it's truly the era of the cloud database, that's something that's rising. And the key trends that come with it include for example, elastic scaling. That is the ability to scale on demand, to right size workloads according to customer requirements. And also I think it's going to increase the prioritization for high availability. That is the player who can provide the highest availability is going to have, I think, a great deal of success in this emerging market. And also I anticipate that there will be more consolidation across platforms in order to enable cost savings for customers, and that's something that's always going to be important. And I think we'll see more of that over the horizon. And then finally security, security will be more important than ever. We've seen a spike (indistinct), we certainly have seen geopolitical originated cybersecurity concerns. And as a result, I see database security becoming all the more important. >> Great, thank you. Okay, let me share some data with you guys. I'm going to throw this at you and see what you think. We have this awesome data partner called Enterprise Technology Research, ETR. They do these quarterly surveys and each period with dozens of industry segments, they track clients spending, customer spending. And this is the database, data warehouse sector okay so it's taxonomy, so it's not perfect, but it's a big kind of chunk. They essentially ask customers within a category and buy a specific vendor, you're spending more or less on the platform? And then they subtract the lesses from the mores and they derive a metric called net score. It's like NPS, it's a measure of spending velocity. It's more complicated and granular than that, but that's the basis and that's the vertical axis. The horizontal axis is what they call market share, it's not like IDC market share, it's just pervasiveness in the data set. And so there are a couple of things that stand out here and that we can use as reference point. The first is the momentum of Snowflake. They've been off the charts for many, many, for over two years now, anything above that dotted red line, that 40%, is considered by ETR to be highly elevated and Snowflake's even way above that. And I think it's probably not sustainable. We're going to see in the next April survey, next month from those guys, when it comes out. And then you see AWS and Microsoft, they're really pervasive on the horizontal axis and highly elevated, Google falls behind them. And then you got a number of well funded players. You got Cockroach Labs, Mongo, Redis, MariaDB, which of course is a fork on MySQL started almost as protest at Oracle when they acquired Sun and they got MySQL and you can see the number of others. Now Oracle who's the leading database player, despite what Marc Staimer says, we know, (laughs) and they're a cloud player (laughing) who happens to be a leading database player. They dominate in the mission critical space, we know that they're the king of that sector, but you can see here that they're kind of legacy, right? They've been around a long time, they get a big install base. So they don't have the spending momentum on the vertical axis. Now remember this is, just really this doesn't capture spending levels, so that understates Oracle but nonetheless. So it's not a complete picture like SAP for instance is not in here, no Hana. I think people are actually buying it, but it doesn't show up here, (laughs) but it does give an indication of momentum and presence. So Bob Evans, I'm going to start with you. You've commented on many of these companies, you know, what does this data tell you? >> Yeah, you know, Dave, I think all these compilations of things like that are interesting, and that folks at ETR do some good work, but I think as you said, it's a snapshot sort of a two-dimensional thing of a rapidly changing, three dimensional world. You know, the incidents at which some of these companies are mentioned versus the volume that happens. I think it's, you know, with Oracle and I'm not going to declare my religious affiliation, either as cloud company or database company, you know, they're all of those things and more, and I think some of our old language of how we classify companies is just not relevant anymore. But I want to ask too something in here, the autonomous database from Oracle, nobody else has done that. So either Oracle is crazy, they've tried out a technology that nobody other than them is interested in, or they're onto something that nobody else can match. So to me, Dave, within Oracle, trying to identify how they're doing there, I would watch autonomous database growth too, because right, it's either going to be a big plan and it breaks through, or it's going to be caught behind. And the Snowflake phenomenon as you mentioned, that is a rare, rare bird who comes up and can grow 100% at a billion dollar revenue level like that. So now they've had a chance to come in, scare the crap out of everybody, rock the market with something totally new, the data cloud. Will the bigger companies be able to catch up and offer a compelling alternative, or is Snowflake going to continue to be this outlier. It's a fascinating time. >> Really, interesting points there. Holgar, I want to ask you, I mean, I've talked to certainly I'm sure you guys have too, the founders of Snowflake that came out of Oracle and they actually, they don't apologize. They say, "Hey, we not going to do all that complicated stuff that Oracle does, we were trying to keep it real simple." But at the same time, you know, they don't do sophisticated workload management. They don't do complex joints. They're kind of relying on the ecosystems. So when you look at the data like this and the various momentums, and we talked about the diverging strategies, what does this say to you? >> Well, it is a great point. And I think Snowflake is an example how the cloud can turbo charge a well understood concept in this case, the data warehouse, right? You move that and you find steroids and you see like for some players who've been big in data warehouse, like Sentara Data, as an example, here in San Diego, what could have been for them right in that part. The interesting thing, the problem though is the cloud hides a lot of complexity too, which you can scale really well as you attract lots of customers to go there. And you don't have to build things like what Bob said, right? One of the fascinating things, right, nobody's answering Oracle on the autonomous database. I don't think is that they cannot, they just have different priorities or the database is not such a priority. I would dare to say that it's for IBM and Microsoft right now at the moment. And the cloud vendors, you just hide that right through scripts and through scale because you support thousands of customers and you can deal with a little more complexity, right? It's not against them. Whereas if you have to run it yourself, very different story, right? You want to have the autonomous parts, you want to have the powerful tools to do things. >> Thank you. And so Matt, I want to go to you, you've set up front, you know, it's just complicated if you're in IT, it's a complicated situation and you've been on the customer side. And if you're a buyer, it's obviously, it's like Holgar said, "Cloud's supposed to make this stuff easier, but the simpler it gets the more complicated gets." So where do you place your bets? Or I guess more importantly, how do you decide where to place your bets? >> Yeah, it's a good question. And to what Bob and Holgar said, you know, the around autonomous database, I think, you know, part of, as I, you know, play kind of armchair psychologist, if you will, corporate psychologists, I look at what Oracle is doing and, you know, databases where they've made their mark and it's kind of, that's their strong position, right? So it makes sense if you're making an entry into this cloud and you really want to kind of build momentum, you go with what you're good at, right? So that's kind of the strength of Oracle. Let's put a lot of focus on that. They do a lot more than database, don't get me wrong, but you know, I'm going to short my strength and then kind of pivot from there. With regards to, you know, what IT looks at and what I would look at you know as an IT director or somebody who is, you know, trying to consume services from these different cloud providers. First and foremost, I go with what I know, right? Let's not forget IT is a conservative group. And when we look at, you know, all the different permutations of database types out there, SQL, NoSQL, all the different types of NoSQL, those are largely being deployed by business users that are looking for agility or businesses that are looking for agility. You know, the reason why MongoDB is so popular is because of DevOps, right? It's a great platform to develop on and that's where it kind of gained its traction. But as an IT person, I want to go with what I know, where my muscle memory is, and that's my first position. And so as I evaluate different cloud service providers and cloud databases, I look for, you know, what I know and what I've invested in and where my muscle memory is. Is there enough there and do I have enough belief that that company or that service is going to be able to take me to, you know, where I see my organization in five years from a data management perspective, from a business perspective, are they going to be there? And if they are, then I'm a little bit more willing to make that investment, but it is, you know, if I'm kind of going in this blind or if I'm cloud native, you know, that's where the Snowflakes of the world become very attractive to me. >> Thank you. So Marc, I asked Andy Jackson in theCube one time, you have all these, you know, data stores and different APIs and primitives and you know, very granular, what's the strategy there? And he said, "Hey, that allows us as the market changes, it allows us to be more flexible. If we start building abstractions layers, it's harder for us." I think also it was not a good time to market advantage, but let me ask you, I described earlier on that spectrum from AWS to Oracle. We just saw yesterday, Oracle announced, I think the third major enhancement in like 15 months to MySQL HeatWave, what do you make of that announcement? How do you think it impacts the competitive landscape, particularly as it relates to, you know, converging transaction and analytics, eliminating ELT, I know you have some thoughts on this. >> So let me back up for a second and defend my cloud statement about Oracle for a moment. (laughing) AWS did a great job in developing the cloud market in general and everything in the cloud market. I mean, I give them lots of kudos on that. And a lot of what they did is they took open source software and they rent it to people who use their cloud. So I give 'em lots of credit, they dominate the market. Oracle was late to the cloud market. In fact, they actually poo-pooed it initially, if you look at some of Larry Ellison's statements, they said, "Oh, it's never going to take off." And then they did 180 turn, and they said, "Oh, we're going to embrace the cloud." And they really have, but when you're late to a market, you've got to be compelling. And this ties into the announcement yesterday, but let's deal with this compelling. To be compelling from a user point of view, you got to be twice as fast, offer twice as much functionality, at half the cost. That's generally what compelling is that you're going to capture market share from the leaders who established the market. It's very difficult to capture market share in a new market for yourself. And you're right. I mean, Bob was correct on this and Holgar and Matt in which you look at Oracle, and they did a great job of leveraging their database to move into this market, give 'em lots of kudos for that too. But yesterday they announced, as you said, the third innovation release and the pace is just amazing of what they're doing on these releases on HeatWave that ties together initially MySQL with an integrated builtin analytics engine, so a data warehouse built in. And then they added automation with autopilot, and now they've added machine learning to it, and it's all in the same service. It's not something you can buy and put on your premise unless you buy their cloud customers stuff. But generally it's a cloud offering, so it's compellingly better as far as the integration. You don't buy multiple services, you buy one and it's lower cost than any of the other services, but more importantly, it's faster, which again, give 'em credit for, they have more integration of a product. They can tie things together in a way that nobody else does. There's no additional services, ETL services like Glue and AWS. So from that perspective, they're getting better performance, fewer services, lower cost. Hmm, they're aiming at the compelling side again. So from a customer point of view it's compelling. Matt, you wanted to say something there. >> Yeah, I want to kind of, on what you just said there Marc, and this is something I've found really interesting, you know. The traditional way that you look at software and, you know, purchasing software and IT is, you look at either best of breed solutions and you have to work on the backend to integrate them all and make them all work well. And generally, you know, the big hit against the, you know, we have one integrated offering is that, you lose capability or you lose depth of features, right. And to what you were saying, you know, that's the thing I found interesting about what Oracle is doing is they're building in depth as they kind of, you know, build that service. It's not like you're losing a lot of capabilities, because you're going to one integrated service versus having to use A versus B versus C, and I love that idea. >> You're right. Yeah, not only you're not losing, but you're gaining functionality that you can't get by integrating a lot of these. I mean, I can take Snowflake and integrate it in with machine learning, but I also have to integrate in with a transactional database. So I've got to have connectors between all of this, which means I'm adding time. And what it comes down to at the end of the day is expertise, effort, time, and cost. And so what I see the difference from the Oracle announcements is they're aiming at reducing all of that by increasing performance as well. Correct me if I'm wrong on that but that's what I saw at the announcement yesterday. >> You know, Marc, one thing though Marc, it's funny you say that because I started out saying, you know, I'm glad I'm not 19 anymore. And the reason is because of exactly what you said, it's almost like there's a pseudo level of witchcraft that's required to support the modern data environment right in the enterprise. And I need simpler faster, better. That's what I need, you know, I am no longer wearing pocket protectors. I have turned from, you know, break, fix kind of person, to you know, business consultant. And I need that point and click simplicity, but I can't sacrifice, you know, a depth of features of functionality on the backend as I play that consultancy role. >> So, Ron, I want to bring in Ron, you know, it's funny. So Matt, you mentioned Mongo, I often and say, if Oracle mentions you, you're on the map. We saw them yesterday Ron, (laughing) they hammered RedShifts auto ML, they took swipes at Snowflake, a little bit of BigQuery. What were your thoughts on that? Do you agree with what these guys are saying in terms of HeatWaves capabilities? >> Yes, Dave, I think that's an excellent question. And fundamentally I do agree. And the question is why, and I think it's important to know that all of the Oracle data is backed by the fact that they're using benchmarks. For example, all of the ML and all of the TPC benchmarks, including all the scripts, all the configs and all the detail are posted on GitHub. So anybody can look at these results and they're fully transparent and replicate themselves. If you don't agree with this data, then by all means challenge it. And we have not really seen that in all of the new updates in HeatWave over the last 15 months. And as a result, when it comes to these, you know, fundamentals in looking at the competitive landscape, which I think gives validity to outcomes such as Oracle being able to deliver 4.8 times better price performance than Redshift. As well as for example, 14.4 better price performance than Snowflake, and also 12.9 better price performance than BigQuery. And so that is, you know, looking at the quantitative side of things. But again, I think, you know, to Marc's point and to Matt's point, there are also qualitative aspects that clearly differentiate the Oracle proposition, from my perspective. For example now the MySQL HeatWave ML capabilities are native, they're built in, and they also support things such as completion criteria. And as a result, that enables them to show that hey, when you're using Redshift ML for example, you're having to also use their SageMaker tool and it's running on a meter. And so, you know, nobody really wants to be running on a meter when, you know, executing these incredibly complex tasks. And likewise, when it comes to Snowflake, they have to use a third party capability. They don't have the built in, it's not native. So the user, to the point that he's having to spend more time and it increases complexity to use auto ML capabilities across the Snowflake platform. And also, I think it also applies to other important features such as data sampling, for example, with the HeatWave ML, it's intelligent sampling that's being implemented. Whereas in contrast, we're seeing Redshift using random sampling. And again, Snowflake, you're having to use a third party library in order to achieve the same capabilities. So I think the differentiation is crystal clear. I think it definitely is refreshing. It's showing that this is where true value can be assigned. And if you don't agree with it, by all means challenge the data. >> Yeah, I want to come to the benchmarks in a minute. By the way, you know, the gentleman who's the Oracle's architect, he did a great job on the call yesterday explaining what you have to do. I thought that was quite impressive. But Bob, I know you follow the financials pretty closely and on the earnings call earlier this month, Ellison said that, "We're going to see HeatWave on AWS." And the skeptic in me said, oh, they must not be getting people to come to OCI. And then they, you remember this chart they showed yesterday that showed the growth of HeatWave on OCI. But of course there was no data on there, it was just sort of, you know, lines up and to the right. So what do you guys think of that? (Marc laughs) Does it signal Bob, desperation by Oracle that they can't get traction on OCI, or is it just really a smart tame expansion move? What do you think? >> Yeah, Dave, that's a great question. You know, along the way there, and you know, just inside of that was something that said Ellison said on earnings call that spoke to a different sort of philosophy or mindset, almost Marc, where he said, "We're going to make this multicloud," right? With a lot of their other cloud stuff, if you wanted to use any of Oracle's cloud software, you had to use Oracle's infrastructure, OCI, there was no other way out of it. But this one, but I thought it was a classic Ellison line. He said, "Well, we're making this available on AWS. We're making this available, you know, on Snowflake because we're going after those users. And once they see what can be done here." So he's looking at it, I guess you could say, it's a concession to customers because they want multi-cloud. The other way to look at it, it's a hunting expedition and it's one of those uniquely I think Oracle ways. He said up front, right, he doesn't say, "Well, there's a big market, there's a lot for everybody, we just want on our slice." Said, "No, we are going after Amazon, we're going after Redshift, we're going after Aurora. We're going after these users of Snowflake and so on." And I think it's really fairly refreshing these days to hear somebody say that, because now if I'm a buyer, I can look at that and say, you know, to Marc's point, "Do they measure up, do they crack that threshold ceiling? Or is this just going to be more pain than a few dollars savings is worth?" But you look at those numbers that Ron pointed out and that we all saw in that chart. I've never seen Dave, anything like that. In a substantive market, a new player coming in here, and being able to establish differences that are four, seven, eight, 10, 12 times better than competition. And as new buyers look at that, they're going to say, "What the hell are we doing paying, you know, five times more to get a poor result? What's going on here?" So I think this is going to rattle people and force a harder, closer look at what these alternatives are. >> I wonder if the guy, thank you. Let's just skip ahead of the benchmarks guys, bring up the next slide, let's skip ahead a little bit here, which talks to the benchmarks and the benchmarking if we can. You know, David Floyer, the sort of semiretired, you know, Wikibon analyst said, "Dave, this is going to force Amazon and others, Snowflake," he said, "To rethink actually how they architect databases." And this is kind of a compilation of some of the data that they shared. They went after Redshift mostly, (laughs) but also, you know, as I say, Snowflake, BigQuery. And, like I said, you can always tell which companies are doing well, 'cause Oracle will come after you, but they're on the radar here. (laughing) Holgar should we take this stuff seriously? I mean, or is it, you know, a grain salt? What are your thoughts here? >> I think you have to take it seriously. I mean, that's a great question, great point on that. Because like Ron said, "If there's a flaw in a benchmark, we know this database traditionally, right?" If anybody came up that, everybody will be, "Oh, you put the wrong benchmark, it wasn't audited right, let us do it again," and so on. We don't see this happening, right? So kudos to Oracle to be aggressive, differentiated, and seem to having impeccable benchmarks. But what we really see, I think in my view is that the classic and we can talk about this in 100 years, right? Is the suite versus best of breed, right? And the key question of the suite, because the suite's always slower, right? No matter at which level of the stack, you have the suite, then the best of breed that will come up with something new, use a cloud, put the data warehouse on steroids and so on. The important thing is that you have to assess as a buyer what is the speed of my suite vendor. And that's what you guys mentioned before as well, right? Marc said that and so on, "Like, this is a third release in one year of the HeatWave team, right?" So everybody in the database open source Marc, and there's so many MySQL spinoffs to certain point is put on shine on the speed of (indistinct) team, putting out fundamental changes. And the beauty of that is right, is so inherent to the Oracle value proposition. Larry's vision of building the IBM of the 21st century, right from the Silicon, from the chip all the way across the seven stacks to the click of the user. And that what makes the database what Rob was saying, "Tied to the OCI infrastructure," because designed for that, it runs uniquely better for that, that's why we see the cross connect to Microsoft. HeatWave so it's different, right? Because HeatWave runs on cheap hardware, right? Which is the breadth and butter 886 scale of any cloud provider, right? So Oracle probably needs it to scale OCI in a different category, not the expensive side, but also allow us to do what we said before, the multicloud capability, which ultimately CIOs really want, because data gravity is real, you want to operate where that is. If you have a fast, innovative offering, which gives you more functionality and the R and D speed is really impressive for the space, puts away bad results, then it's a good bet to look at. >> Yeah, so you're saying, that we versus best of breed. I just want to sort of play back then Marc a comment. That suite versus best of breed, there's always been that trade off. If I understand you Holgar you're saying that somehow Oracle has magically cut through that trade off and they're giving you the best of both. >> It's the developing velocity, right? The provision of important features, which matter to buyers of the suite vendor, eclipses the best of breed vendor, then the best of breed vendor is in the hell of a potential job. >> Yeah, go ahead Marc. >> Yeah and I want to add on what Holgar just said there. I mean the worst job in the data center is data movement, moving the data sucks. I don't care who you are, nobody likes it. You never get any kudos for doing it well, and you always get the ah craps, when things go wrong. So it's in- >> In the data center Marc all the time across data centers, across cloud. That's where the bleeding comes. >> It's right, you get beat up all the time. So nobody likes to move data, ever. So what you're looking at with what they announce with HeatWave and what I love about HeatWave is it doesn't matter when you started with it, you get all the additional features they announce it's part of the service, all the time. But they don't have to move any of the data. You want to analyze the data that's in your transactional, MySQL database, it's there. You want to do machine learning models, it's there, there's no data movement. The data movement is the key thing, and they just eliminate that, in so many ways. And the other thing I wanted to talk about is on the benchmarks. As great as those benchmarks are, they're really conservative 'cause they're underestimating the cost of that data movement. The ETLs, the other services, everything's left out. It's just comparing HeatWave, MySQL cloud service with HeatWave versus Redshift, not Redshift and Aurora and Glue, Redshift and Redshift ML and SageMaker, it's just Redshift. >> Yeah, so what you're saying is what Oracle's doing is saying, "Okay, we're going to run MySQL HeatWave benchmarks on analytics against Redshift, and then we're going to run 'em in transaction against Aurora." >> Right. >> But if you really had to look at what you would have to do with the ETL, you'd have to buy two different data stores and all the infrastructure around that, and that goes away so. >> Due to the nature of the competition, they're running narrow best of breed benchmarks. There is no suite level benchmark (Dave laughs) because they created something new. >> Well that's you're the earlier point they're beating best of breed with a suite. So that's, I guess to Floyer's earlier point, "That's going to shake things up." But I want to come back to Bob Evans, 'cause I want to tap your Cloud Wars mojo before we wrap. And line up the horses, you got AWS, you got Microsoft, Google and Oracle. Now they all own their own cloud. Snowflake, Mongo, Couchbase, Redis, Cockroach by the way they're all doing very well. They run in the cloud as do many others. I think you guys all saw the Andreessen, you know, commentary from Sarah Wang and company, to talk about the cost of goods sold impact of cloud. So owning your own cloud has to be an advantage because other guys like Snowflake have to pay cloud vendors and negotiate down versus having the whole enchilada, Safra Catz's dream. Bob, how do you think this is going to impact the market long term? >> Well, Dave, that's a great question about, you know, how this is all going to play out. If I could mention three things, one, Frank Slootman has done a fantastic job with Snowflake. Really good company before he got there, but since he's been there, the growth mindset, the discipline, the rigor and the phenomenon of what Snowflake has done has forced all these bigger companies to really accelerate what they're doing. And again, it's an example of how this intense competition makes all the different cloud vendors better and it provides enormous value to customers. Second thing I wanted to mention here was look at the Adam Selipsky effect at AWS, took over in the middle of May, and in Q2, Q3, Q4, AWS's growth rate accelerated. And in each of those three quotas, they grew faster than Microsoft's cloud, which has not happened in two or three years, so they're closing the gap on Microsoft. The third thing, Dave, in this, you know, incredibly intense competitive nature here, look at Larry Ellison, right? He's got his, you know, the product that for the last two or three years, he said, "It's going to help determine the future of the company, autonomous database." You would think he's the last person in the world who's going to bring in, you know, in some ways another database to think about there, but he has put, you know, his whole effort and energy behind this. The investments Oracle's made, he's riding this horse really hard. So it's not just a technology achievement, but it's also an investment priority for Oracle going forward. And I think it's going to form a lot of how they position themselves to this new breed of buyer with a new type of need and expectations from IT. So I just think the next two or three years are going to be fantastic for people who are lucky enough to get to do the sorts of things that we do. >> You know, it's a great point you made about AWS. Back in 2018 Q3, they were doing about 7.4 billion a quarter and they were growing in the mid forties. They dropped down to like 29% Q4, 2020, I'm looking at the data now. They popped back up last quarter, last reported quarter to 40%, that is 17.8 billion, so they more doubled and they accelerated their growth rate. (laughs) So maybe that pretends, people are concerned about Snowflake right now decelerating growth. You know, maybe that's going to be different. By the way, I think Snowflake has a different strategy, the whole data cloud thing, data sharing. They're not trying to necessarily take Oracle head on, which is going to make this next 10 years, really interesting. All right, we got to go, last question. 30 seconds or less, what can we expect from the future of data platforms? Matt, please start. >> I have to go first again? You're killing me, Dave. (laughing) In the next few years, I think you're going to see the major players continue to meet customers where they are, right. Every organization, every environment is, you know, kind of, we use these words bespoke in Snowflake, pardon the pun, but Snowflakes, right. But you know, they're all opinionated and unique and what's great as an IT person is, you know, there is a service for me regardless of where I am on my journey, in my data management journey. I think you're going to continue to see with regards specifically to Oracle, I think you're going to see the company continue along this path of being all things to all people, if you will, or all organizations without sacrificing, you know, kind of richness of features and sacrificing who they are, right. Look, they are the data kings, right? I mean, they've been a database leader for an awful long time. I don't see that going away any time soon and I love the innovative spirit they've brought in with HeatWave. >> All right, great thank you. Okay, 30 seconds, Holgar go. >> Yeah, I mean, the interesting thing that we see is really that trend to autonomous as Oracle calls or self-driving software, right? So the database will have to do more things than just store the data and support the DVA. It will have to show it can wide insights, the whole upside, it will be able to show to one machine learning. We haven't really talked about that. How in just exciting what kind of use case we can get of machine learning running real time on data as it changes, right? So, which is part of the E5 announcement, right? So we'll see more of that self-driving nature in the database space. And because you said we can promote it, right. Check out my report about HeatWave latest release where I post in oracle.com. >> Great, thank you for that. And Bob Evans, please. You're great at quick hits, hit us. >> Dave, thanks. I really enjoyed getting to hear everybody's opinion here today and I think what's going to happen too. I think there's a new generation of buyers, a new set of CXO influencers in here. And I think what Oracle's done with this, MySQL HeatWave, those benchmarks that Ron talked about so eloquently here that is going to become something that forces other companies, not just try to get incrementally better. I think we're going to see a massive new wave of innovation to try to play catch up. So I really take my hat off to Oracle's achievement from going to, push everybody to be better. >> Excellent. Marc Staimer, what do you say? >> Sure, I'm going to leverage off of something Matt said earlier, "Those companies that are going to develop faster, cheaper, simpler products that are going to solve customer problems, IT problems are the ones that are going to succeed, or the ones who are going to grow. The one who are just focused on the technology are going to fall by the wayside." So those who can solve more problems, do it more elegantly and do it for less money are going to do great. So Oracle's going down that path today, Snowflake's going down that path. They're trying to do more integration with third party, but as a result, aiming at that simpler, faster, cheaper mentality is where you're going to continue to see this market go. >> Amen brother Marc. >> Thank you, Ron Westfall, we'll give you the last word, bring us home. >> Well, thank you. And I'm loving it. I see a wave of innovation across the entire cloud database ecosystem and Oracle is fueling it. We are seeing it, with the native integration of auto ML capabilities, elastic scaling, lower entry price points, et cetera. And this is just going to be great news for buyers, but also developers and increased use of open APIs. And so I think that is really the key takeaways. Just we're going to see a lot of great innovation on the horizon here. >> Guys, fantastic insights, one of the best power panel as I've ever done. Love to have you back. Thanks so much for coming on today. >> Great job, Dave, thank you. >> All right, and thank you for watching. This is Dave Vellante for theCube and we'll see you next time. (soft music)

(bright upbeat music) >> Hello everyone, and welcome to the special exclusive CUBE Conversation, where we continue our coverage of the trends of the database market. With me is Nipun Agarwal, who's the vice president, MySQL HeatWave in advanced development at Oracle. Nipun, welcome. >> Thank you Dave. >> I love to have technical people on the Cube to educate, debate, inform, and we've extensively covered this market. We were all over the Snowflake IPO and at that time I remember, I challenged organizations bring your best people. Because I want to better understand what's happening at Database. After Oracle kind of won the Database wars 20 years ago, Database kind of got boring. And then it got really exciting with the big data movement, and all the, not only SQL stuff coming out, and Hadoop and blah, blah, blah. And now it's just exploding. You're seeing huge investments from many of your competitors, VCs are trying to get into the action. Meanwhile, as I've said many, many times, your chairman and head of technology, CTO, Larry Ellison, continues to invest to keep Oracle relevant. So it's really been fun to watch and I really appreciate you coming on. >> Sure thing. >> We have written extensively, we talked to a lot of Oracle customers. You get the leading mission critical database in the world. Everybody from Fortune 100, we evaluated what Gardner said about the operational databases. I think there's not a lot of question there. And we've written about that on WikiBound about you're converged databases, and the strategy there, and we're going to get into that. We've covered Autonomous Data Warehouse Exadata Cloud at Customer, and then we just want to really try to get into your area, which has been, kind of caught our attention recently. And I'm talking about the MySQL Database Service with HeatWave. I love the name, I laugh. It was an unveiled, I don't know, a few months ago. So Nipun, let's start the discussion today. Maybe you can update our viewers on what is HeatWave? What's the overall focus with Oracle? And how does it fit into the Cloud Database Service? >> Sure Dave. So HeatWave is a in-memory query accelerator for the MySQL Database Service for speeding up analytic queries as well as long running complex OLTP queries. And this is all done in the context of a single database which is the MySQL Database Service. Also, all existing MySQL applications or MySQL compatible tools and applications continue to work as is. So there is no change. And with this HeatWave, Oracle is delivering the only MySQL service which provides customers with a single unified platform for both analytic as well as transaction processing workloads. >> Okay, so, we've seen open source databases in the cloud growing very rapidly. I mentioned Snowflake, I think Google's BigQuery, get some mention, we'll talk, we'll maybe talk more about Redshift later on, but what I'm wondering, well let's talk about now, how does MySQL HeatWave service, how does that compare to MySQL-based services from other cloud vendors? I can get MySQL from others. In fact, I think we do. I think we run WikiBound on the LAMP stack. I think it's running on Amazon, but so how does your service compare? >> No other vendor, like, no other vendor offers this differentiated solution with an open source database namely, having a single database, which is optimized both for transactional processing and analytics, right? So the example is like MySQL. A lot of other cloud vendors provide MySQL service but MySQL has been optimized for transaction processing so when customs need to run analytics they need to move the data out of MySQL into some other database for any analytics, right? So we are the only vendor which is now offering this unified solution for both transactional processing analytics. That's the first point. Second thing is, most of the vendors out there have taken open source databases and they're basically hosting it in the cloud. Whereas HeatWave, has been designed from the ground up for the cloud, and it is a 100% compatible with MySQL applications. And the fact that we have designed it from the ground up for the cloud, maybe I'll spend 100s of person years of research and engineering means that we have a solution, which is very, very scalable, it's very optimized in terms of performance, and it is very inexpensive in terms of the cost. >> Are you saying, well, wait, are you saying that you essentially rewrote MySQL to create HeatWave but at the same time maintained compatibility with existing applications? >> Right. So we enhanced MySQL significantly and we wrote a whole bunch of new code which is brand new code optimized for the cloud in such a manner that yes, it is 100% compatible with all existing MySQL applications. >> What does it mean? And if I'm to optimize for the cloud, I mean, I hear that and I say, okay, it's taking advantage of cloud-native. I hear kind of the buzzwords, cloud-first, cloud-native. What does it specifically mean from a technical standpoint? >> Right. So first, let's talk about performance. What we have done is that we have looked at two aspects. We have worked with shapes like for instance, like, the compute shapes which provide the best performance for dollar, per dollar. So I'll give you a couple of examples. We have optimized for certain shifts. So, HeatWave is in-memory query accelerator. So the cost of the system is dominated by the cost. So we are working with chips which provide the cheapest cost per terabyte of memory. Secondly, we are using commodity cloud services in such a manner that it's in-optimized for both performance as well as performance per dollar. So, example is, we are not using any locally-attached SSDs. We use ObjectStore because it's very inexpensive. And then I guess at some point I will get into the details of the architecture. The system has been really, really designed for massive scalability. So as you add more compute, as you add more service, the system continues to scale almost perfectly linearly. So this is what I mean in terms of being optimized for the cloud. >> All right, great. >> And furthermore, (indistinct). >> Thank you. No, carry on. >> Over the next few months, you will see a bunch of other announcements where we're adding a whole bunch of machine learning and data driven-based automation which we believe is critical for the cloud. So optimized for performance, optimized for the cloud, and machine learning-based automation which we believe is critical for any good cloud-based service. >> All right, I want to come back and ask you more about the architecture, but you mentioned some of the others taking open source databases and shoving them into the cloud. Let's take the example of AWS. They have a series of specialized data stores and, for different workloads, Aurora is for OLTP I actually think it's based on MySQL Redshift which is based on ParAccel. And so, and I've asked Amazon about this, and their response is, actually kind of made sense to me. Look, we want the right tool for the right job, we want access to the primitives because when the market changes we can change faster as opposed to, if we put, if we start building bigger and bigger databases with more functionality, it's, we're not as agile. So that kind of made sense to me. I know we, again, we use a lot, we use, I think I said MySQL in Amazon we're using DynamoDB, works, that's cool. We're not huge. And I, we fully admit and we've researched this, when you start to get big that starts to get maybe expensive. But what do you think about that approach and why is your approach better? >> Right, we believe that there are multiple drawbacks of having different databases or different services, one, optimized for transactional processing and one for analytics and having to ETL between these different services. First of all, it's expensive because you have to manage different databases. Secondly, it's complex. From an application standpoint, applications need, now need to understand the semantics of two different databases. It's inefficient because you have to transfer data at some PRPC from one database to the other one. It's not secure because there is security aspects involved when your transferring data and also the identity of users in the two different databases is different. So it's, the approach which has been taken by Amazons and such, we believe, is more costly, complex, inefficient and not secure. Whereas with HeatWave, all the data resides in one database which is MySQL and it can run both transaction processing and analytics. So in addition to all the benefits I talked about, customers can also make their decisions in real time because there is no need to move the data. All the data resides in a single database. So as soon as you make any changes, those changes are visible to customers for queries right away, which is not the case when you have different siloed specialized databases. >> Okay, that, a lot of ways to skin a cat and that what you just said makes sense. By the way, we were saying before, companies have taken off the shelf or open source database has shoved them in the cloud. I have to give Amazon some props. They actually have done engineering to Aurora and Redshift. And they've got the engineering capabilities to do that. But you can see, for example, in Redshift the way they handle separating compute from storage it's maybe not as elegant as some of the other players like a Snowflake, for example, but they get there and they, maybe it's a little bit more brute force but so I don't want to just make it sound like they're just hosting off the shelf in the cloud. But is it fair to say that there's like a crossover point? So in other words, if I'm smaller and I'm not, like doing a bunch of big, like us, I mean, it's fine. It's easy, I spin it up. It's cheaper than having to host my own servers. So there's, presumably there's a sweet spot for that approach and a sweet spot for your approach. Is that fair or do you feel like you can cover a wider spectrum? >> We feel we can cover the entire spectrum, not wider, the entire spectrum. And we have benchmarks published which are actually available on GitHub for anyone to try. You will see that this approach you have taken with the MySQL Database Service in HeatWave, we are faster, we are cheaper without having to move the data. And the mileage or the amount of improvement you will get, surely vary. So if you have less data the amount of improvement you will get, maybe like say 100 times, right, or 500 times, but smaller data sizes. If you get to lots of data sizes this improvement amplifies to 1000 times or 10,000 times. And similarly for the cost, if the data size is smaller, the cost advantage you will have is less, maybe MySQL HeatWave is one third the cost. If the data size is larger, the cost advantage amplifies. So to your point, MySQL Database Service in HeatWave is going to be better for all sizes but the amount of mileage or the amount of benefit you will get increases as the size of the data increases. >> Okay, so you're saying you got better performance, better cost, better price performance. Let me just push back a little bit on this because I, having been around for awhile, I often see these performance and price comparisons. And what often happens is a vendor will take the latest and greatest, the one they just announced and they'll compare it to an N-1 or an N-2, running on old hardware. So, is, you're normalizing for that, is that the game you're playing here? I mean, how can you, give us confidence that this is easier kind of legitimate benchmarks in your GitHub repo. >> Absolutely. I'll give you a bunch of like, information. But let me preface this by saying that all of our scripts are available in the open source in the GitHub repo for anyone to try and we would welcome feedback otherwise. So we have taken, yes, the latest version of MySQL Database Service in HeatWave, we have optimized it, and we have run multiple benchmarks. For instance, TBC-H, TPC-DS, right? Because the amount of improvement a query will get depends upon the specific query, depends upon the predicates, it depends on the selectivity so we just wanted to use standard benchmarks. So it's not the case that if you're using certain classes of query, excuse me, benefit, get them more. So, standard benchmarks. Similarly, for the other vendors or other services like Redshift, we have run benchmarks on the latest shapes of Redshift the most optimized configuration which they recommend, running their scripts. So this is not something that, hey, we're just running out of the box. We have optimized Aurora, we have optimized (indistinct) to the best and possible extent we can based on their guidelines, based on their latest release, and that's what you're talking about in terms of the numbers. >> All right. Please continue. >> Now, for some other vendors, if we get to the benchmark section, we'll talk about, we are comparing with other services, let's say Snowflake. Well there, there are issues in terms of you can't legally run Snowflake numbers, right? So there, we have looked at some reports published by Gigaom report. and we are taking the numbers published by the Gigaom report for Snowflake, Google BigQuery and as you'll see maps numbers, right? So those, we have not won ourselves. But for AWS Redshift, as well as AWS Aurora, we have run the numbers and I believe these are the best numbers anyone can get. >> I saw that Gigaom report and I got to say, Gigaom, sometimes I'm like, eh, but I got to say that, I forget the guy's name, he knew what he was talking about. He did a good job, I thought. I was curious as to the workload. I always say, well, what's the workload. And, but I thought that report was pretty detailed. And Snowflake did not look great in that report. Oftentimes, and they've been marketing the heck out of it. I forget who sponsored it. It is, it was sponsored content. But, I did, I remember seeing that and thinking, hmm. So, I think maybe for Snowflake that sweet spot is not, maybe not that performance, maybe it's the simplicity and I think that's where they're making their mark. And most of their databases are small and a lot of read-only stuff. And so they've found a market there. But I want to come back to the architecture and really sort of understand how you've able, you've been able to get this range of both performance and cost you talked about. I thought I heard that you're optimizing the chips, you're using ObjectStore. You're, you've got an architecture that's not using SSD, it's using ObjectStore. So this, is their cashing there? I wonder if you could just give us some details of the architecture and tell us how you got to where you are. >> Right, so let me start off saying like, what are the kind of numbers we are talking about just to kind of be clear, like what the improvements are. So if you take the MySQL Database Service in HeatWave in Oracle Cloud and compare it with MySQL service in any other cloud, and if you look at smaller data sizes, say data sizes which are about half a terabyte or so, HeatWave is 400 times faster, 400 times faster. And as you get to... >> Sorry. Sorry to interrupt. What are you measuring there? Faster in terms of what? >> Latency. So we take TCP-H 22 queries, we run them on HeatWave, and we run the same queries on MySQL service on any other cloud, half a terabyte and the performance in terms of latency is 400 times faster in HeatWave. >> Thank you. Okay. >> If you go to a lot of other data sites, then the other data point of view, we're looking at say something like, 4 TB, there, we did two comparisons. One is with AWS Aurora, which is, as you said, they have taken MySQL. They have done a bunch of innovations over there and we are offering it as a premier service. So on 4 TB TPC-H, MySQL Database Service with HeatWave is 1100 times faster than Aurora. It is three times faster than the fastest shape of Redshift. So Redshift comes in different flavors some talking about dense compute too, right? And again, looking at the most recommended configuration from Redshift. So 1100 times faster that Aurora, three times faster than Redshift and at one third, the cost. So this where I just really want to point out that it is much faster and much cheaper. One third the cost. And then going back to the Gigaom report, there was a comparison done with Snowflake, Google BigQuery, Redshift, Azure Synapse. I wouldn't go into the numbers here but HeatWave was faster on both TPC-H as well as TPC-DS across all these products and cheaper compared to any of these products. So faster, cheaper on both the benchmarks across all these products. Now let's come to, like, what is the technology underneath? >> Great. >> So, basically there are three parts which you're going to see. One is, improve performance, very good scale, and improve a lower cost. So the first thing is that HeatWave has been optimized and, for the cloud. And when I say that, we talked about this a bit earlier. One is we are using the cheapest shapes which are available. We're using the cheapest services which are available without having to compromise the performance and then there is this machine learning-based automation. Now, underneath, in terms of the architecture of HeatWave there are basically, I would say, four key things. First is, HeatWave is an in-memory engine that a presentation which we have in memory is a hybrid columnar representation which is optimized for vector process. That's the first thing. And that's pretty table stakes these days for anyone who wants to do in-memory analytics except that it's hybrid columnar which is optimized for vector processing. So that's the first thing. The second thing which starts getting to be novel is that HeatWave has a massively parallel architecture which is enabled by a massively partitioned architecture. So we take the data, we read the data from MySQL into the memory of the HeatWave and we massively partition this data. So as we're reading the data, we're partitioning the data based on the workload, the sizes of these partitions is such that it fits in the cache of the underlying processor and then we're able to consume these partitions really, really fast. So that's the second bit which is like, massively parallel architecture enabled by massively partitioned architecture. Then the third thing is, that we have developed new state-of-art algorithms for distributed query processing. So for many of the workloads, we find that joints are the long pole in terms of the amount of time it takes. So we at Oracle have developed new algorithms for distributed joint processing and similarly for many other operators. And this is how we're being able to consume this data or process this data, which is in-memory really, really fast. And finally, and what we have, is that we have an eye for scalability and we have designed algorithms such that there's a lot of overlap between compute and communication, which means that as you're sending data across various nodes and there could be like, dozens of of nodes or 100s of nodes that they're able to overlap the computation time with the communication time and this is what gives us massive scalability in the cloud. >> Yeah, so, some hard core database techniques that you've brought to HeatWave, that's impressive. Thank you for that description. Let me ask you, just to go to quicker side. So, MySQL is open source, HeatWave is what? Is it like, open core? Is it open source? >> No, so, HeatWave is something which has been designed and optimized for the cloud. So it can't be open source. So any, it's not open service. >> It is a service. >> It is a service. That's correct. >> So it's a managed service that I pay Oracle to host for me. Okay. Got it. >> That's right. >> Okay, I wonder if you could talk about some of the use cases that you're seeing for HeatWave, any patterns that you're seeing with customers? >> Sure, so we've had the service, we had the HeatWave service in limited availability for almost 15 months and it's been about five months since we have gone G. And there's a very interesting trend of our customers we're seeing. The first one is, we are seeing many migrations from AWS specifically from Aurora. Similarly, we are seeing many migrations from Azure MySQL we're migrations from Google. And the number one reason customers are coming is because of ease of use. Because they have their databases currently siloed. As you were talking about some for optimized for transactional processing, some for analytics. Here, what customers find is that in a single database, they're able to get very good performance, they don't need to move the data around, they don't need to manage multiple databaes. So we are seeing many migrations from these services. And the number one reason is reduce complexity of ease of use. And the second one is, much better performance and reduced costs, right? So that's the first thing. We are very excited and delighted to see the number of migrations we're getting. The second thing which we're seeing is, initially, when we had the service announced, we were like, targeting really towards analytics. But now what are finding is, many of these customers, for instance, who have be running on Aurora, when they are moving from MySQL in HeatWave, they are finding that many of the OLTP queries as well, are seeing significant acceleration with the HeatWave. So now customers are moving their entire applications or, to HeatWave. So that's the second trend we're seeing. The third thing, and I think I kind of missed mentioning this earlier, one of the very key and unique value propositions we provide with the MySQL Database Service in HeatWave, is that we provide a mechanism where if customers have their data stored on premise they can still leverage the HeatWave service by enabling MySQL replication. So they can have their data on premise, they can replicate this data in the Oracle Cloud and then they can run analytics. So this deployment which we are calling the hybrid deployment is turning out to be very, very popular because there are customers, there are some customers who for various reasons, compliance or regulatory reasons cannot move the entire data to the cloud or migrate the data to the cloud completely. So this provides them a very good setup where they can continue to run their existing database and when it comes to getting benefits of HeatWave for query acceleration, they can set up this replication. >> And I can run that on anyone, any available server capacity or is there an appliance to facilitate that? >> No, this is just standard MySQL replication. So if a customer is running MySQL on premise they can just turn off this application. We have obviously enhanced it to support this inbound replication between on-premise and Oracle Cloud with something which can be enabled as long as the source and destination are both MySQL. >> Okay, so I want to come back to this sort of idea of the architecture a little bit. I mean, it's hard for me to go toe to toe with the, I'm not an engineer, but I'm going to try anyway. So you've talked about OLTP queries. I thought, I always thought HeatWave was optimized for analytics. But so, I want to push on this notion because people think of this the converged database, and what you're talking about here with HeatWave is sort of the Swiss army knife which is great 'cause you got a screwdriver and you got Phillips and a flathead and some scissors, maybe they're not as good. They're not as good necessarily as the purpose-built tool. But you're arguing that this is best of breed for OLTP and best of breed for analytics, both in terms of performance and cost. Am I getting that right or is this really a Swiss army knife where that flathead is really not as good as the big, long screwdriver that I have in my bag? >> Yes, so, you're getting it right but I did want to make a clarification. That HeatWave is definitely the accelerator for all your queries, all analytic queries and also for the long running complex transaction processing inquiries. So yes, HeatWave the uber query accelerator engine. However, when it comes to transaction processing in terms of your insert statements, delete statements, those are still all done and served by the MySQL database. So all, the transactions are still sent to the MySQL database and they're persistent there, it's the queries for which HeatWave is the accelerator. So what you said is correct. For all query acceleration, HeatWave is the engine. >> Makes sense. Okay, so if I'm a MySQL customer and I want to use HeatWave, what do I have to do? Do I have to make changes to my existing applications? You applied earlier that, no, it's just sort of plugs right in. But can you clarify that. >> Yes, there are absolutely no changes, which any MySQL or MySQL compatible application needs to make to take advantage of HeatWave. HeatWave is an in-memory accelerator and it's completely transparent to the application. So we have like, dozens and dozens of like, applications which have migrated to HeatWave, and they are seeing the same thing, similarly tools. So if you look at various tools which work for analytics like, Tableau, Looker, Oracle Analytics Cloud, all of them will work just seamlessly. And this is one of the reasons we had to do a lot of heavy lifting in the MySQL database itself. So the MySQL database engineering team was, has been very actively working on this. And one of the reasons is because we did the heavy lifting and we meet enhancements to the MySQL optimizer in the MySQL storage layer to do the integration of HeatWave in such a seamless manner. So there is absolutely no change which an application needs to make in order to leverage or benefit from HeatWave. >> You said earlier, Nipun, that you're seeing migrations from, I think you said Aurora and Google BigQuery, you might've said Redshift as well. Do you, what kind of tooling do you have to facilitate migrations? >> Right, now, there are multiple ways in which customers may want to do this, right? So the first tooling which we have is that customers, as I was talking about the replication or the inbound replication mechanism, customers can set up heat HeatWave in the Oracle Cloud and they can send the data, they can set up replication within their instances in their cloud and HeatWave. Second thing is we have various kinds of tools to like, facilitate the data migration in terms of like, fast ingestion sites. So there are a lot of such customers we are seeing who are kind of migrating and we have a plethora of like, tools and applications, in addition to like, setting up this inbound application, which is the most seamless way of getting customers started with HeatWave. >> So, I think you mentioned before, I have my notes, machine intelligence and machine learning. We've seen that with autonomous database it's a big, big deal obviously. How does HeatWave take advantage of machine intelligence and machine learning? >> Yeah, and I'm probably going to be talking more about this in the future, but what we have already is that HeatWave uses machine learning to intelligently automate many operations. So we know that when there's a service being offered in the cloud, our customers expect automation. And there're a lot of vendors and a lot of services which do a good job in automation. One of the places where we're going to be very unique is that HeatWave uses machine learning to automate many of these operations. And I'll give you one such example which is provisioning. Right now with HeatWave, when a customer wants to determine how many nodes are needed for running their workload, they don't need to make a guess. They invoke a provisioning advisor and this advisor uses machine learning to sample a very small percentage of the data. We're talking about, like, 0.1% sampling and it's able to predict the amount of memory with 95% accuracy, which this data is going to take. And based on that, it's able to make a prediction of how many servers are needed. So just a simple operation, the first step of provisioning, this is something which is done manually across, on any of the service, whereas at HeatWave, we have machine learning-based advisor. So this is an example of what we're doing. And in the future, we'll be offering many such innovations as a part of the MySQL Database and the HeatWave service. >> Well, I've got to say I was skeptic but I really appreciate it, you're, answering my questions. And, a lot of people when you made the acquisition and inherited MySQL, thought you were going to kill it because they thought it would be competitive to Oracle Database. I'm happy to see that you've invested and figured out a way to, hey, we can serve our community and continue to be the steward of MySQL. So Nipun, thanks very much for coming to the CUBE. Appreciate your time. >> Sure. Thank you so much for the time, Dave. I appreciate it. >> And thank you for watching everybody. This is Dave Vellante with another CUBE Conversation. We'll see you next time. (bright upbeat music)