(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) >> 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)

(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)