Tag Archives: Database Compression
Oracle DBAs are challenged with keeping mission critical databases up and running with predictable performance as data volumes grow. Our customers are changing their approach to proactively managing Oracle performance while simplifying IT by leveraging our innovative Data Archive Smart Partitioning features. Smart Partitioning leverages Oracle Database Partitioning, simplifying deploying and managing partitioning strategies. DBAs have been able to respond to requests to improve business process performance without having to write any custom code or SQL scripts.
With Smart Partitioning, DBA’s have a new dialogue with business analysts – rather than wading in the technology weeds, they ask how many months, quarters or years of data are required to get the job done? And show – within a few clicks – how users can self-select how much gets processed when they run queries, reports or programs – basically showing them how they can control their own performance by controlling the volume of data they pull from the database.
Smart Partitioning is configured using easily understood business dimensions such as time, company, business unit etc. These dimensions make it easy to ‘slice’ data to meet the job at hand. Performance becomes manageable and under business control. Another benefit is in your non-production environments. Creating smaller sized, subset databases that are fully functional now fits easily into your cloning operations.
Finally, Informatica has been working closely with the Oracle Enterprise Solutions Group to align Informatica Data Archive Smart Partitioning with the Oracle ZS3 Appliance to maximize performance and savings while minimizing the complexity of implementing an Information Lifecycle Management strategy.
In one of my earlier blogs, I wrote about why you still need database archiving, when you already partition your database. On a similar vein, many people also ask me why you still need to archive when you already have database compression to reduce your storage capacity and cost. The benefits of archiving, which you can’t achieve with just compression and/or partitioning are still the same:
- Archiving allows you to completely move data volumes out of the production system to improve response time and reduce infrastructure costs. Why keep unused data, even if compressed, on high cost server infrastructure when you don’t need to? Why add overhead to query processing when you can remove the data from being processed at all?
- Avoid server and software license upgrades. By removing inactive data from the database, you no longer require as much processing power and you can keep your existing server without having to add CPU cores and additional licenses for your database and application. This further eliminates costs.
- Reduce overall administration and maintenance costs. If you still keep unused data around in your production system, you still need to back it up, replicate it for high availability, clone it for non-production copies, recover it in the event of a disaster, upgrade it, organize and partition it, and consider it as part of your performance tuning strategy. Yes, it will take less time to backup, copy, restore, etc., since the data is compressed and is smaller, but why even include that data as part of production maintenance activities at all, if it’s infrequently used?
- Remove the multiplier effect. The cost of additional data volume in production systems is multiplied when you consider how many copies you have of that production data in mirrors, backups, clones, non-production systems, and reporting warehouses. The size multiplier is less since the data is compressed, but it’s still more wasted capacity in multiple locations. Not to mention the additional server, software license, and maintenance costs associated with the additional volumes in those multiple copies. So it’s best to just remove that data size at the source.
- Ensure compliance by enforcing retention and disposition policies. As I discussed in my previous blog on the difference between archiving and backup, archiving is the solution for long term data retention. Archiving solutions, such as Informatica Data Archive, have integration points with records management software or provide built-in retention management to enforce the retention of data for a specified period based on policies. During that period, the immutability and authenticity of the archived data is ensured, and when the retention period expires, records are automatically purged after the appropriate review and approval process. Regulated data needs to be retained long enough to comply with regulations, but keeping data for too long can also become a legal liability. So it’s important that expired records are purged in a timely manner. Just keeping data in production databases indefinitely doesn’t help you to reduce your compliance and legal risks.
Implementing enterprise application and database archiving is just plain best practices. The best way to improve performance and reduce infrastructure and maintenance costs is to reduce the data volume in your production systems. Why increase overhead when you don’t have to? Today’s archiving solutions allow you to maintain easy access to the data after archival, so there is no reason to keep data around just for the sake of accessibility. By moving inactive but regulated data to a central archival store, you can uniformly enforce retention policies. At the same time, you can reduce the time and cost of eDiscovery by making all types of data centrally and easily searchable.
This is my first blog for Perspectives and I wanted to talk about one of last week’s announcements -Informatica introduced the first ever cloud archiving service optimized for databases. Since then, I’ve had a number of questions from customers and analysts about what exactly makes it optimized? Certainly, a number of vendors have the ability to land data in the cloud, so how is this different? Let me capture the highlights:
In December, 2005 Sun Microsystems conducted an interview with Bill Inmon, the father of the data warehouse concept. He said, “ILM keeps a data warehouse from costing huge amounts of money and maintains good performance consistently throughout the data warehouse environment.” Four years later, the average size of a data warehouse has increased by 200%, surpassing the multi-terabyte size benchmark.
With these mammoth databases comes an increase in cost to manage them and a potential deterioration in performance. It is common practice to leverage techniques like indexing and database partitioning to address query performance issues with very large databases but those techniques do not address challenges associated with the raw volumes of data.