Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Oracle Beware — Google Tests Cloud-Based Database

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the db-two-point-oh dept.

Databases 123

narramissic writes "On Tuesday, the same day Google held a press event to launch its Google Apps Sync for Microsoft Outlook, the company quietly announced in its research team blog a new online database called Fusion Tables. Under the hood of Fusion Tables is data-spaces technology, which would 'allow Google to add to the conventional two-dimensional database tables a third coordinate with elements like product reviews, blog posts, Twitter messages and the like, as well as a fourth dimension of real-time updates,' according to Stephen E. Arnold, a technology and financial analyst. 'So now we have an n-cube, a four-dimensional space, and in that space we can now do new kinds of queries which create new kinds of products and new market opportunities,' said Arnold, whose research about this topic includes a study done for IDC last August. 'If you're IBM, Microsoft and Oracle, your worst nightmare is now visible.'"

cancel ×

123 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Oh My! (-1, Offtopic)

NetNinja (469346) | more than 5 years ago | (#28311203)

Clouds and Databases Oh My! First Post?

Re:Oh My! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28311225)

Linux just isn't ready for the cloud-based database yet. It may be ready for the web servers that you nerds use to distribute your TRON fanzines and personal Dungeons and Dragons web-sights across the world wide web, but the average database administrator isn't going to spend months learning how to use a CLI and then hours compiling packages so that they can get a workable graphic interface to check their databases with, especially not when they already have a Windows machine with OracleDB that does its job perfectly well and is backed by a major corporation, as opposed to Linux which is only supported by a few unemployed nerds living in their mother's basement somewhere. The last thing I want is a level 5 dwarf (haha) providing me my OS.

Steve Jobs' reaction to the news: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28311265)

I'm infected with AIDS,
I fuck every day,
I kill everything I fuck!

I fill you up with my disease,
Contaminate you with deadly needs,
My loaded cock is like a gun,
I'm a walking time bomb killing everyone,

Let me be your stiff hard fuck,
Cram your cunt with poisonous cock,
Your hairy cunt will be my aim,
Deadly penetration is my game,

Drenched in my fluids you'll never know,
I plant the seed of death untold,
Before I die, I hope I do,
Kill many more, as I've killed you!

-- Steve Jobs

yeah, but..... (0, Flamebait)

OutOnARock (935713) | more than 5 years ago | (#28311205)


Will they do no evil as they scan every data element on the planet?

Re:yeah, but..... (0)

Rei (128717) | more than 5 years ago | (#28311439)

I love the Evil(tm) sounding statements like, 'If you're IBM, Microsoft and Oracle, your worst nightmare is now visible.' Can't you just picture them wearing a white lab coat and Dr. Horrible glasses while saying that? "Now Google is here! To make you quake with fear! To make the whole world kneel."

And they won't feeeeeeeeel! ... a thing.

Re:yeah, but..... (1)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 5 years ago | (#28312631)

shouldnt that be IBM Microsoft or Oracle, not and

one company cant be all 3

red? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28311233)

Why does this post show up as red to me?

Re:red? (1)

Eddy Luten (1166889) | more than 5 years ago | (#28311657)

Because it was very recent when you saw it on the front page.

Re:red? (2, Insightful)

dtml-try MyNick (453562) | more than 5 years ago | (#28311719)

The color in which Google posts are presented is related to the current status of Google's "do no evil" motto.
Red implifies that the google software is now on the verge of becoming self-aware and we should be getting very afraid.

Apparently this new database was the final drop. When it gets out of beta the world as we know it will seize to exist.

Have a nice day.

Re:red? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28312061)

Cease. Not seize.

Re:red? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28312083)

When it gets out of beta the world as we know it will seize to exist.

Thankfully none of us will be alive to see the day.

Um... what? (5, Insightful)

Estanislao Martnez (203477) | more than 5 years ago | (#28311243)

How's this three dimensional stuff not just plain old OLAP [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:Um... what? (5, Funny)

smallfries (601545) | more than 5 years ago | (#28311329)

Because it packs more hype into an n-cube, and fills a 4-dimensional space with marketing.

Come on, that's impressive guys, right?

Re:Um... what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28311467)

Yeah, I call crapnanigans on this. Stephen E. Arnold, you're now on record as being a techno-imbecile.

(Please note, I obeyed the rule of using five made-up words or less in this novel of mine.)

Re:Um... what? (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 5 years ago | (#28311519)

Yeah, I call crapnanigans on this. Stephen E. Arnold, you're now on record as being a techno-imbecile.

(Please note, I obeyed the rule of using five made-up words or less in this novel of mine.)

It already said so in the summary. "technology and financial analyst"

To be fair (5, Informative)

Estanislao Martnez (203477) | more than 5 years ago | (#28311613)

Looking over the actual Google blog announcement [blogspot.com] , this looks more like a case of the F article [itworld.com] getting it all wrong. The "dimensionality" stuff is clearly not intended to be the innovation or selling point of Google's service; much less a differentiator relative to database vendors, who've had OLAP for ages.

The real selling points seem to be an easy UI, a lot of predefined public data sets available to combine and correlate with your own data, and the collaboration features.

Re:Um... what? (4, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#28311725)

Because it packs more hype into an n-cube, and fills a 4-dimensional space with marketing.

That's why it's called a hype[r]cube. They'd call it a tesseract, but the reviewers kept asking how it helped with eye problems. ;-)

Joking aside, a cube is a data-mining/reporting concept that pre-computes a number of reporting relationships between data elements. Adding a "fourth-dimension" is usually what's referred to as a "slowly changing dimension". It's usually handled by adding time stamps denoting an active period for a record, then computing based on a time range.

I don't know if Google means the same thing here (probably not), but it sounds like the real breakthrough is a large-scale data space. Having worked with a few data space DBs, the concept lends itself well to the more organic nature of the Web. IMHO, it has the potential to succeed and offer a strong competitive advantage over traditional RDBMSes.

Today's RDBMSes are great, but the cost of adding new features to the application is extremely high. Data spaces sidestep the issue by allowing you to add data in whatever format you need. There are some rather obvious pitfalls (I can hear the DBAs screaming about data integrity already), but it matches the web development environment well. :-)

Re:Um... what? (1)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 5 years ago | (#28312595)

Well yes and no. Basically from what I can tell, this sounds like automation of ORM. Basically you take ORM, build functionality to automatically handle joins and then add in functionality like notes which is nothing more than another table.

It has it's use like Access has it's use but this goes back to the same old argument of ORM not scaling as well as perhaps an SQL layer in your application. Some small scale websites might make use of this and find it useful but running anything medium to large would be a bad idea. Enterprise would be completely out of the question.

But automation IS the future and this will be the way we eventually go. It's just going to be a while before running businesses off something like this is viable.

Re:Um... what? (3, Funny)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 5 years ago | (#28311845)

I think you're overlooking the impact of this as a challenge to Oracle and other DB providers.

It's not just marketing. This will revolutionize how DB services are provided. For one thing, now all your data is belong to Google (but that's a small price to pay for free/low cost data hosting, right?). For another thing, this DB exists in four dimensions. Unfortunately, one of those dimensions is the home of Googol the Destroyer, who has been summoned to our dimension to wreak the End of Days via the Rite of a Thousand Targeted Ads. Development of this DB was actually how Googol the Destroyer was accidentally summoned to our dimension; following his summoning, he quickly turned all of Google to his cause.

When last we saw our heroes [slashdot.org] , they were continuing work on their plan to convert all the world's sorcerors to their cause, building the One True OS with Built-in Global Web Search to stop Googol. We learned the source of Stallmanx's power were the beard gnomes that live in his Beard of Druidic Prowess when they helped him escape from Googol's clutches.

Meanwhile, Googol's crack team of evil underlords continue their preparation of preventative solutions to all the possible ways the world can be saved (probalby stored in this new 4-dimensional DB, by the way). Googol the Destroyer continues to devour data gathered by the Webcrawling Spiders of Doom with gobsmacking satisfaction.

So what are our heroes, Joba and Gatus, up to?

JOBA: Gatus, how are you fairing in your quest to buy out all the greedy sorcerors?

I did well for a while, and I've still got cash left thanks to issuing those bonds last month... but it seems that the remaining sorcerors are resisting the charms of my cold, hard cash. For some reason they are not responding to my efforts to Embrace and Extend them.

JOBA: Perhaps you should rethink your pitch. I'm good at marketing, let me help. For instance, maybe the "Extend" part of your methods should not involve use of the Rack. Maybe a new slogan, like "Embrace and Embrace". Then it's just hugs all around.

GATUS: Perhaps you have a point. But I think that's a little extreme. How about "Embrace and Exsanguinate"? I could use an Iron Maiden to drain their blood, surely that's not as bad as Extending them on the Rack?

JOBA: No, no, that doesn't work at all. Trust me... "Embrace and Embrace" is the best way for all the sorcerors to come to appreciate your strengths. And who knows, you might like it. [wink]

GATUS: Very well. But how goes your plans to subvert the Ministers of Fashion to get th low-self-esteem sorcerors to come to your side?

JOBA: Splendidly. Though there is some backlash from the sorcerors who want "open" hardware or somesuch. Apparently they are incapble of appreciating the "experience" I deliver. We'll have to work on them.

Meanwhile, Googol instructs his acolytes in the finer points of using his 4-dimensional database to represent n-dimensional space, where n equals the number of souls fed to the Targeted Advertising Machine of Futile Resistance. This information is to be used by them in a nefarious plot to neutralize the efforts of our heroes. Coinciding with this, Googol has instructed his crack team of evil underlords to collect the threads of the Ultimate Evil Woven Tapestry of Universe Description, known as "Dark Fibers", in one place.

What is Googol the Destroyer planning with the Dark Fibers? How will He utilize the Evil Woven Tapestry of Universe Description in his bid to wreak the End of Days?

Will Gatus and Joba be able to complete the One True OS with Built-in Global Web Search in time?

Tune in to next week's episode of Google the Destroyer to find out!

Re:Um... what? (0, Redundant)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | more than 5 years ago | (#28312239)

OMFG LOL

Re:Um... what? (1)

GaryOlson (737642) | more than 5 years ago | (#28313141)

Now that is some impressive n-dimensional cloud satire.

Re:Um... what? (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 5 years ago | (#28313305)

Unfortunately, the moderation on the Googol the Destroyer posts tends to fluctuate.

The posts are too long, which hurts -- brevity is the soul of wit.

Also, the Apple fanboys don't like the satirization of Jobs AND they tend to have a lot of mod points, the Google fanboys don't like the anthropomorphic satirization of Google, and both the Microsoft fanboys have issues with the satirization of Gates.

It's like an exercise in how to piss off the most people and still end up with positive moderation.

I just have to be careful that I don't piss off the slashdot editors, They of Infinite Mod Points. Though they tend to have a light touch... maybe I should consider who the editor-on-duty is when I make these posts...

Re:Um... what? (1)

StellarFury (1058280) | more than 5 years ago | (#28312081)

Screw n-cube. I want TIME-CUBE.

Re:Um... what? (1)

EvilBudMan (588716) | more than 5 years ago | (#28312551)

Hey, they forgot the 5th Dimension. I heard that was an even better rock group than the 3rd Dimension.

Re:Um... what? (1)

cant_get_a_good_nick (172131) | more than 5 years ago | (#28312889)

4th Dimension(al) [4d.com] Database has already been done. I used this back in 1993, 94 or so.

Re:Um... what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28311407)

'allow Google to add to the conventional two-dimensional database tables a third coordinate with elements like product reviews, blog posts, Twitter messages and the like, as well as a fourth dimension of real-time updates'

What does that even mean?! "[A] fourth dimension of real-time updates"? Oh my God, Google has triggers!

Re:Um... what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28311443)

It's good old OLAP. Google just loves to reinvent the wheel all the time. Oracle beat the proprietary Google solution 20 years ago.

Re:Um... what? (1)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 5 years ago | (#28311497)

Seriously, just add one attribute to every table, and now you have a new "dimension." Big freaking woop.

Re:Um... what? (3, Interesting)

WarwickRyan (780794) | more than 5 years ago | (#28311635)

Yes and no.

What they're describing what I'd describe as an OLAP 2.0. They're taking similar capabilities (central data store, cubed data) and combining them with user generated content, sharing and the cloud.

The system looks extremely similar to an BI system.

I'd make an counter point to TFA: I actually think that this is probablly Business Objects / Microstrategy / Cognos's biggest dream: the system shows the power that effectively BI can provide an business with data which is effectively shared and public.

Google are making their business case: give vendor lots-of-money and they can gain the capability over your own data, but in an nicely managable manner (so your competitors won't be getting access to it).

Re:Um... what? (1)

WarwickRyan (780794) | more than 5 years ago | (#28311721)

Gah, why doesn't Slashdot have an edit function? It's 2009 not 2001.

Re:Um... what? (2, Informative)

Estanislao Martnez (203477) | more than 5 years ago | (#28311743)

Yeah, that's more or less what I figured after reading a bit more through stuff [slashdot.org] . The article Slashdot is sourcing this from is just clueless about what the real differentiating point is; it's not the fact that it's OLAP, it's the UI and integration with other Google or web data.

Re:Um... what? (1)

ghetto2ivy (1228580) | more than 5 years ago | (#28313997)

It is. Man I need to borrow their marketing speak.

Merged? (4, Funny)

againjj (1132651) | more than 5 years ago | (#28311259)

'If you're IBM, Microsoft and Oracle, your worst nightmare is now visible.'

I didn't realize they had merged.

Re:Merged? (5, Funny)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 5 years ago | (#28311377)

'If you're IBM, Microsoft and Oracle, your worst nightmare is now visible.'

I didn't realize they had merged.

You just described my worst nightmare!

Re:Merged? (2, Funny)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 5 years ago | (#28312063)

Yes. Their keystone product is now System Z Office DB.

Have fun figuring out your licensing costs.

Re:Merged? (2, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#28312647)

System Z Office DB

That's just what the market calls it for short. The full name is MicrOracleBM Java System Z Office DB2i AS Windows Enterprise Edition.

Or as I like to call it, MOBMJSZODBASWEE. Rolls right off the tongue.

Re:Merged? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28312121)

'If you're IBM, Microsoft and Oracle, your worst nightmare is now visible.'

I didn't realize they had merged.

Not only have they merged, but they're now a single person who dreams (and, consequently, has nightmares)... and he reads Slashdot, too.

Re:Merged? (1)

genghisjahn (1344927) | more than 5 years ago | (#28312687)

Yes...and their new name is: IBM, Microsoft and Oracle.

Google had better look out (1, Funny)

Facegarden (967477) | more than 5 years ago | (#28311263)

I'm coming out with a five-dimensional database.
-Taylor

Re:Google had better look out (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 5 years ago | (#28313701)

I'm coming out with a five-dimensional database.

Got you beat; I'm coming out with a 5.00000001 dimension database.
     

Re:Google had better look out (1)

Facegarden (967477) | more than 5 years ago | (#28314021)

I'm coming out with a five-dimensional database.

Got you beat; I'm coming out with a 5.00000001 dimension database.

   

Fuck!

But seriously - my other post was modded troll? It was supposed to be funny!

And it was also supposed to be a bit serious - saying that adding twitter messages and the like makes it 3D is just silly. It't just another table, which is cool and could be extremely useful, but that doesn't make it 3D, does it?

And then you throw in time and it's 4D? I can understand time actually being useful and it does make sense that it would add another dimension, but i would call the end result 3D, not 4D. It just reminds me of when Sony stupidly said "The Xbox 360 only has 3D graphics, the PS3 will have 4D graphics." Which is just stupid marketing bullshit.

I was seriously not trying to troll.
-Taylor

mdash (1)

despeaux (1254096) | more than 5 years ago | (#28311273)

I like how the word "mdash" is in the URL.

Dimensional nonsense? (4, Insightful)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#28311291)

I don't get it. Relational databases are deficient, because they need twitter posts and the FOURTH DIMENSION of being able to update and insert data?

Re:Dimensional nonsense? (1)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 5 years ago | (#28311555)

I'm right there with you. I don't get it either... The other google thing had a nifty video. I need to try and find one for this...

Re:Dimensional nonsense? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28311595)

Clearly someone has no clue of the word dimension and relational databases. Just because a table can be printed on paper doesn't make it two dimensional.

In relational databases a table is a set of tuples. A tuple is a finite sequence of elements. An n-tuple has n elements and is itsself an element in a n-dimensional space.

That fourth dimension nonsense is what you get if you don't have a basic education of relational databases and relational algebra. But thats just the old stuff of the '70s that is way outdated, right?

Re:Dimensional nonsense? (1)

GaryOlson (737642) | more than 5 years ago | (#28313379)

If you don't use twitter posts as a foreign key, how do you ever expect the data to be properly socially indexed?

interesting (1)

Malenx (1453851) | more than 5 years ago | (#28311303)

I'm interested in how this is going to further web development and online collaboration.

It seems to be a wiki like simplified database.

Re:interesting (1)

sunking2 (521698) | more than 5 years ago | (#28311527)

I guess the theory is that now the FBI can use your ssn to search and join on every database in the cloud that you have permission to, whether they own and maintain the data or not. I'm not real sure what the big deal is other than by offering a free 250MB of space to host Google can now mine the crap out of it nice and conveniently.

Re:interesting (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28311531)

I'm interested in how this is going to further web development and online collaboration.

The same way every other technology that is nothing but hype has impacted it. If you don't use it, you won't be cool enough. Therefore everyone will start using it even though the result is a big ugly slow web app that doesn't add much in the way of usability but won't run on most browsers, is error prone on other browsers and takes an up to date beefy system just to run the same basic thing that ran fine on older hardware with the "old" tech.

Seriously though. Why all the relational database and SQL bashing? Someone explain to be what sort of new math people are trying to invent that will invalidate the mathematics of set theory and render it obsolete?

"Dataspaces" and RDBMSs not opposed (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 5 years ago | (#28312363)

Seriously though. Why all the relational database and SQL bashing? Someone explain to be what sort of new math people are trying to invent that will invalidate the mathematics of set theory and render it obsolete?

Dataspaces (ignoring the hype explosion) has nothing to do with relational database or SQL bashing; it fills a different role than RDBMSs; a particular purposes of "Dataspaces" is to unify access to heterogenous collections of data, including the case where some of the underlying data is held in RDBMSs, as is apparent from the paper describing them [berkeley.edu] .

The pre-alpha implementation here doesn't seem to do much of that; it requires importing fairly simple tabular data into its internal datastore, and doesn't seem to do much to unify diverse underlying datastores, but given the technology that Google says its based on, one presumes that that's the future goal of Fusion Tables, and that the current version mostly is a demonstration of some what you will be able to do on the front-end given the existence of the right back-end data. The really interesting part will come if and when they support back-end data other than stuff exported into there internal servers in CSV/XLS format, particularly, linking to externally-stored and maintained data. And, for that matter, when they can support aggregation and calculation rather than just simple filtering and joins.

Re:interesting (1)

Dexx (34621) | more than 5 years ago | (#28313347)

Maybe it's more of an alternative to stuff like Crystal Reports?
Dump data into google tables, let executives play with it, generate charts, trends, etc.

Or B2B customers could sift through their data which is updated by a core data system.
Data imports could be handled by dumping the data to a google table, then customers and account managers could hash out values/columns before involving a DBA.

You must be joking! (1)

macbeth66 (204889) | more than 5 years ago | (#28311319)



"'If you're IBM, Microsoft and Oracle, your worst nightmare is now visible.'"

Like I would EVER trust a company to store my data, let alone touch it. The life's blood of my company.

Re:You must be joking! (2, Interesting)

sabs (255763) | more than 5 years ago | (#28311409)

Well, to be honest.

I work at a bank. We use something called Fiserve which is a completely hosted Financial services software package.
We open accounts, manage accounts, do our teller stuff, all on software and in databases that we do not own in any way shape or form. It freaks the hell out of me, but it does happen.

Hype. (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 5 years ago | (#28311373)

'If you're IBM, Microsoft and Oracle, your worst nightmare is now visible.'

Really? It probably threatens slashdot's business model more than it does corporate IT vendors. Imagine a new mash up that delivers all the content of slashdot without any of the ads nor the frequent fiddling with message filter UIs.

Re:Hype. (0, Troll)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#28311517)

I have slashdot mashup that removes the dupe posts, stupid posts, and groupthink comments: here [goatse.ch]

Worst nightmare indeed (5, Funny)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 5 years ago | (#28311413)

Twitter coordinates, n-Cubes, and four-dimensional spaces... in a cloud?

Gee... I'm glad it's not possible to die from a hype overdose.

Re:Worst nightmare indeed (3, Informative)

Publikwerks (885730) | more than 5 years ago | (#28311539)

You have to proactivly think outside the box to imagine the synergy that the 4-D database brings to the current paradyme

Re:Worst nightmare indeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28311899)

but are you going to be able to leverage industry standard best practices to better support and maintain the realational 4-d hypercloud?

Re:Worst nightmare indeed (1)

mR.bRiGhTsId3 (1196765) | more than 5 years ago | (#28312305)

You, sir, win at buzzwords.

Re:Worst nightmare indeed (1)

Bieeanda (961632) | more than 5 years ago | (#28311687)

Not just a hype overdose, but a hyper overdose!

Re:Worst nightmare indeed (1)

robot_love (1089921) | more than 5 years ago | (#28312119)

You must be immune. I've been feeling ill all day. An least now I know why.

Damn you, n-Cubes!!

Re:Worst nightmare indeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28312537)

I just had a flashback to vector calculus.

Proprietary data? (4, Insightful)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 5 years ago | (#28311491)

What company in their right mind is going to upload the crown jewels into someone else's computer?

Re:Proprietary data? (3, Informative)

abigor (540274) | more than 5 years ago | (#28311747)

Salesforce.com (crm), Taleo (hr), and various others like them are all successful. SAP is working on an online offering, I hear, and it may already be out there, I don't know. In short, lots and lots of companies offload various critical functions into the "cloud" (argh) if it makes sense to do so.

Re:Proprietary data? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28313899)

lots and lots of companies offload various critical functions into the "cloud" (argh) if it makes sense to do so

It does not have to make sense, you just need good marketing against bad management.
My company has moved to salesforce.com, not because we needed this horrible, slow, tool, but because the management has been convinced by their marketing.

Re:Proprietary data? (2, Interesting)

blhack (921171) | more than 5 years ago | (#28311753)

Google seems to be really great at taking a little tiny thing, doing it a couple billion times, and making a few cents off of every transaction.

My guess is that this is aimed more at individuals who are writing blogs and contact managers, not so much corporations with huge development teams and datacenters.

To answer your question: people that don't really think that their data is "top secret".

Re:Proprietary data? (1)

Rary (566291) | more than 5 years ago | (#28312227)

My guess is that this is aimed more at individuals who are writing blogs and contact managers...

Not likely. The focus seems to be on sharing and analyzing data, not just storing for retrieval on a web page. This is more BI than read-mostly RDBMS.

Re:Proprietary data? (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#28311761)

I stick my crown jewels into someone else's mouth. Swimmers (like information) want to be free! ~~~~o

Re:Proprietary data? (2, Interesting)

jambarama (784670) | more than 5 years ago | (#28312087)

Funny you mention that, I saw an article yesterday [acm.org] which claims to have created an encryption scheme where encrypted data can be modified, written into, queried, and anything "that can be eciently expressed as a circuit" by a person without the decryption key.

If I'm reading the paper correctly, it would mean google could host data, and without having access to the data itself, could still permit user lookups and modifications. Of course that doesn't allay concerns of 3rd party reliability, the encryption scheme is inefficient, and this method may not be robust enough to support the complexity of an sql query, but who knows if it wouldn't be possible in the future.

Re:Proprietary data? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28312347)

No kidding, I mean data = money.

And I keep all my money under a mattress in my house, why on earth would I give my money to a bank?

I also generate my own electricity, collect, pump and filter my water and treat my own sewage.

Trust no one.

Re:Proprietary data? (1)

pleappleappleap (1182301) | more than 5 years ago | (#28313863)

I trust outsiders with my feces. I don't trust them with my data.

And I trust my electric company up to a point. I still have backup power systems.

Re:Proprietary data? (1)

juanergie (909157) | more than 5 years ago | (#28312441)

I believe at some point far back in the past people thought the same about banks: what person it its right mind will put the cash in someone else's safe?

It is a matter of time and technology; soon enough this type of clouds and outsourcing of IT infrastructure will be taken for granted.

Re:Proprietary data? (1)

Haeleth (414428) | more than 5 years ago | (#28313765)

There are big differences between data and money.

For example, all money is fundamentally the same. All data is fundamentally different. You aren't going to get a competitive advantage from looking at the banknotes in my pocket; you might however benefit significantly from a glance at the contents of a USB stick.

Likewise, you can't look at my bank balance and say "hey, that's a great idea, I'll have a bank balance that size too!" But you could very easily look at my data and decide to copy that.

And banks have more incentive to be secure. If someone breaks into a bank and steals a whole load of money, it is the bank itself that suffers most, not the clients of that bank. If someone breaks into a data store and steals data, on the other hand, then it is the clients who suffer most, not the operators of the data store. Who will just point you to the terms and conditions you agreed to, which will say that they're not liable ...

Re:Proprietary data? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#28314343)

If someone breaks into a bank and steals a whole load of money, it is the bank itself that suffers most, not the clients of that bank. If someone breaks into a data store and steals data, on the other hand, then it is the clients who suffer most, not the operators of the data store.

Both are insured against direct financial loss, such as when they get sued for dropping their customers' trousers, but neither can in fact be insured against the loss of customers that will surely ensue when such a confidence-destroying event as theft occurs.

Re:Proprietary data? (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 5 years ago | (#28312451)

What company in their right mind is going to upload the crown jewels into someone else's computer?

While the pre-alpha version of Fusion Tables does require uploading the data to it for it to use, the whole concept of Dataspaces is providing a unified interface to heterogenous collections of underlying datastores that aren't directly under the complete control of the Dataspace, so presumably, when the system is more developed, you won't need to trust anyone else's computer with control of your data to make use of it with this product.

But there isn't a lot of information about where they plan to go on this; that's just what I glean from having read the paper on Dataspaces and looked at what Fusion Tables does now.

Re:Proprietary data? (1)

dtoader (1104557) | more than 5 years ago | (#28313499)

What company?

This is happening on a major scale in IT operations.

If a you installed a third-party client application
with a DB backend and are hosting the database locally,
chances are the vendor is working on getting that out of
your server room DB server and into their cloud data center.
Your users will probably access the new system
through a web interface.

Anecdotally ADP has done this with their eTIMEsheet
application.

That which can be off-hosted will be.

The reasoning is that it frees up personnel and cuts overhead.
How it pans out in real life (cloud outages, data loss, etc.) is
another story.

Re:Proprietary data? (1)

InsertWittyNameHere (1438813) | more than 5 years ago | (#28314421)

All Your dataBASE Are Belong To Us!

-Google

Re:Proprietary data? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28314449)

The one I work for :(

Sorry Google (2, Funny)

DetpackJump (1219130) | more than 5 years ago | (#28311521)

Unless you add fifth dimensional monkeys, you just aren't cool anymore.

Re:Sorry Google (1)

Gerocrack (979018) | more than 5 years ago | (#28311689)

But they HAVE added them... you can't see a monkey from the fifth dimension until it is too late. That's why they're so dangerous.

Re:Sorry Google (1)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 5 years ago | (#28311815)

I don't know about that, but I did see the newly formed super-group The Fifth-Dimensonal Monkees some time back. They did a mashup of "I'm a Believer" and "Age of Aquarius". Really, really horrible.

Re:Sorry Google (1)

Clandestine_Blaze (1019274) | more than 5 years ago | (#28314511)

Unless you add fifth dimensional monkeys, you just aren't cool anymore.

I thought they had consultants?

Quaternions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28311679)

Before long we'll be using them in queries I suppose...

Somebody is a bit prone to hyperbole (4, Insightful)

sirwired (27582) | more than 5 years ago | (#28311681)

I have a funny feeling Oracle, DB2, and MS SQL executives aren't exactly quivering in abject terror at the idea of a database with "a third coordinate with elements like product reviews, blog posts, Twitter messages and the like."

"Real time updates" are a new feature (and a "fourth dimension")? That's news to me... I thought batch-only updates went out with punchcards.

I'm pretty sure this Google thing has some interesting features, but I am equally sure that it has nothing to do with the buzzword-stuff from that marketing drone/"IT Consultant."

SirWired

Re:Somebody is a bit prone to hyperbole (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28312389)

Much less from some dude who doesn't even work at Google.

Punch cards out?? Oh, no! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28313073)

Thank God Paper tape is still in!

Ummm... shouldn't this be called (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28311697)

Google adds Joins?

Why should ANY database company (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28311751)

be afraid of cloud computing? What corporation in their right mind would EVER put valuable company information on the internet? What happens when your internet connection goes down? What happens when someone breaks in and takes whatever data you have (or worse, takes it and deletes the original data). I can't see how this could POSSIBLY be a good idea for any corporate entity.

The same goes for the "cloud" that google has consisting of googledocs. Why would any corporate entity (or home user?) want to rely upon internet based data storage for valuable documents?

Re:Why should ANY database company (1)

gubers33 (1302099) | more than 5 years ago | (#28311901)

One of the largest data storage company, EMC, is working on cloud computing just google EMC Atmos.

Re:Why should ANY database company (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#28313357)

What happens when your internet connection goes down?

Companies have dealt with this already -- for instance, often a central office will have the data, perhaps on an actual mainframe, but regardless -- branch offices connect in via VPN. No Internet, no VPN.

Better question: What happens when your power goes out? That seems to happen about as often as Internet being out -- more often, in fact, if you don't count the fact that Internet generally stops working when power does.

What happens when someone breaks in

And this is less likely in-house?

Quick question: Do you honestly believe you have a better IT department -- in particular, better security -- than Google? If so, you're either in a very small minority, or you're out of your fucking mind.

It's called outsourcing. It's not new.

The same goes for the "cloud" that google has consisting of googledocs. Why would any corporate entity (or home user?) want to rely upon internet based data storage for valuable documents?

Because it's convenient? Duh?

Oh, Google Docs can work offline, and MS Office can work online, which makes your whole argument moot. It makes me wonder if you're actually that uninformed, or if you're astroturfing.

Re:Why should ANY database company (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28314143)

What happens when your internet connection goes down?

Companies have dealt with this already -- for instance, often a central office will have the data, perhaps on an actual mainframe, but regardless -- branch offices connect in via VPN. No Internet, no VPN.

Better question: What happens when your power goes out? That seems to happen about as often as Internet being out -- more often, in fact, if you don't count the fact that Internet generally stops working when power does.

True... But several remote office's losing access is different than everyone everywhere losing access because of an Internet/power failure (or perhaps a google routing problem). If you have a datacenter with a few hundred or thousands of users on location, at least they can still access.

What happens when someone breaks in

And this is less likely in-house?

Quick question: Do you honestly believe you have a better IT department -- in particular, better security -- than Google? If so, you're either in a very small minority, or you're out of your fucking mind.

It's called outsourcing. It's not new.

Well, if you go off of simple availability, then yes, we do. Google seems to have problems with gmail and googledocs all the time. Security is also probably better, simply because there's less cooks in the kitchen. How many admin's does google have that can access user data? How many admins in your internal IT department have access? Which could audit that and come back with an answer quicker? It won't be google. Simply, you probably are not going to increase the security of your data by moving it to a large 'cloud provider'. Also - Outsourcing? Seriously? That's worked great for everyone involved in that...

The same goes for the "cloud" that google has consisting of googledocs. Why would any corporate entity (or home user?) want to rely upon internet based data storage for valuable documents?

Because it's convenient? Duh?

Oh, Google Docs can work offline, and MS Office can work online, which makes your whole argument moot. It makes me wonder if you're actually that uninformed, or if you're astroturfing.

Got us on that one, it is rather convenient. Yeah, I've read slash dot for a while, but never posted before, so flame away... But, you actually made wonder if you are really that informed, or do you just work for Google?

Security Issue (4, Informative)

gubers33 (1302099) | more than 5 years ago | (#28311803)

Although clouds are the hot topic right now they are nothing new. The concept as been around since the 1960s with the timesharing model. Clouds are definitely the thing of the future, and cloud security is going along with that trend. It is not that clouds can't be secured like any other network, it is that they can't be tested as easily as every other network. I mean other companies are working on cloud storage as well, the big one being EMC with Atmos. It is an intriguing concept, but get the cloud secure enough to put confidential information in it will be the deal breaker.

Less Marketing speak...what its about... (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 5 years ago | (#28312213)

The marketing speak and abuse of the term "dimensions" in TFS is entirely unhelpful as to what "dataspaces" are about. The pre-alpha release of Fusion Tables now available has pretty limited (though interesting) functionality; a broader picture of what "dataspaces" are about is available in this paper [berkeley.edu] , which is probably more useful to the technically- (rather than marketing-) oriented crowd on Slashdot.

Of particular note, a "DataSpace Support Platform" (DSSP) is not a replacement for RDBMSs, but instead something that fits a different role and provides a common interface for data stored in heterogenous underlying storage systems, some of which could be RDBMSs. Its true that some RDBMSs do provide some features along these lines, but they aren't the principal strength of RDBMSs.

Re:Less Marketing speak...what its about... (1)

kingkoopa (1400245) | more than 5 years ago | (#28313061)

I agree 100%. The article makes mention of dimensions and n-cubes, which is already synonymous with star schemas and OLAP cubes in the data warehousing/business intelligence world. To me this causes confusion as to understanding how exactly this Google Fusion works, or even what exactly it does. From looking at the Berkeley paper you linked, I don't see any connection between Dataspaces and OLAP cubes tbh.

This is significant news for industry insiders... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28312535)

Nearly 100% of the pundits commenting on this story are as ignorant as the submitter. This is significant news and it's extremely problematic for a large number of industry stalwarts. That the submitter had no clue and over-hyped the wrong points is besides the point... and on par for a Slashdot submission.

Re:This is significant news for industry insiders. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28313607)

Well I'm glad you've cleared that up. The argument you've made along with the supporting facts are irrefutable!

What the hell were you yammering about again?

Memory Based Databases (1)

smist08 (1059006) | more than 5 years ago | (#28313147)

From this article, I couldn't tell, but my real interest is in how Google does massively distributed in-memory databases. That is the technology I'm most interested in. I don't really care so much about the other stuff. Is this what Google runs? Or just an academic side project?

time for Dynamic Relational (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28313625)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>