(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)