3 ms·
That's impressive, considering that this CosmosDB development only started in 2014! You are talking about Cosmos which is still around but is now used as the ba
by dtrailin 7y ago
That's impressive, considering that this CosmosDB development only started in 2014! You are talking about Cosmos which is still around but is now used as the basis of Azure Data lake [0]. However, I think the closest MS has to Dremel is actually Kusto [1] which has a custom query language but works pretty well.
[0] https://azure.microsoft.com/en-ca/solutions/data-lake/ https://azure.microsoft.com/en-ca/solutions/data-lake/
[1] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/kusto/query/ https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/kusto/query/
- m0zg 7y agoYou're probably right. However, having worked at MS for nearly a decade in the past, I'd be stunned if Cosmos did not serve, at least in part, as the foundation, and CosmosDB did not inherit a good chunk of the team. Dremel now uses standard SQL and unlike Kusto it supports multiway joins and a bunch of other things expected of a more "general purpose" analytical DB. Ultimately MS efforts will be stymied by the fact that their underlying storage story is nowhere near as good as Google's Colossus. I won't disclose the details, but that's another thing that blew my mind: I could do linear reads (which is what columnar DBs do nearly all of the time) faster than I could process the data, from hundreds, or even thousands of workers at the same time. The IO throughput there is truly immense, which is especially impressive given that all of the storage is remote.
- CurtHagenlocher 7y agoCosmos and CosmosDB have next-to-nothing in common and were not built by the same people.
- manigandham 7y agoWhy would you be stunned? They are completely separate systems. It's like saying BigQuery and BigTable share something because they both have "Big" in their name.