Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

IBM Netezza Performance Server vs MySQL comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
7.1
IBM Netezza Performance Server boosts business performance and ROI with faster queries, cost-saving compression, and platform integration.
Sentiment score
5.5
Many users find MySQL cost-effective and beneficial, appreciating its open-source nature, no licensing fees, and effective resource utilization.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.4
IBM Netezza's support receives varied ratings, praised for quick deliveries but critiqued for inconsistent response times and support quality.
Sentiment score
6.3
Customers appreciate MySQL's extensive online resources and community engagement, often resolving issues quickly without needing expensive technical support.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
6.3
Users have mixed scalability experiences with IBM Netezza, citing limitations and suggesting cloud solutions for improved scalability.
Sentiment score
8.3
MySQL is cost-effective, flexible, scales well for small to medium applications, and integrates with various tools and languages.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.8
IBM Netezza Performance Server is generally stable, with rare issues resolved quickly, relying on solid queries and architecture understanding.
Sentiment score
7.9
MySQL is highly stable, reliable under heavy load, with fast recovery and strong security, praised for its long-standing reputation.
 

Room For Improvement

IBM Netezza Performance Server struggles with scalability, real-time integration, interface limitations, and requires improvements in concurrency and cloud capabilities.
The system needs improvements in setup, security, scalability, usability, documentation, support, performance, integration, automation, and cost-effective licensing.
 

Setup Cost

IBM Netezza pricing varies; seen as cost-effective for long-term use but expensive for high performance and proprietary tech.
Enterprise users favor MySQL's Community Edition for its cost-effectiveness, while its Enterprise version is competitively priced and budget-friendly.
 

Valuable Features

IBM Netezza Performance Server offers fast, scalable data analytics with easy migration, optimized queries, and integrated hardware for reliability.
MySQL is a cost-effective, open-source database offering stability, scalability, security, and broad compatibility, ideal for varied applications.
 

Categories and Ranking

IBM Netezza Performance Server
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
33
Ranking in other categories
Data Warehouse (11th)
MySQL
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
147
Ranking in other categories
Open Source Databases (1st), Relational Databases Tools (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

IBM Netezza Performance Server and MySQL aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. IBM Netezza Performance Server is designed for Data Warehouse and holds a mindshare of 4.3%, up 3.9% compared to last year.
MySQL, on the other hand, focuses on Open Source Databases, holds 14.4% mindshare, down 20.8% since last year.
Data Warehouse
Open Source Databases
 

Featured Reviews

Shemal Gandhi - PeerSpot reviewer
A cost-effective data warehousing tool, but security features like TDE encryption are missing
The solution's maintenance is quite easy. One person is enough to maintain the solution. If you are using PostgreSQL as a database solution, then using IBM Netezza Performance Server is the logical choice since it is based on open-source Postgres. However, if you are using Oracle, data conversion can be tricky. So, in that case, you want to go ahead with Exadata. Overall, I rate IBM Netezza Performance Server a seven out of ten.
Patryk Golabek - PeerSpot reviewer
Good beginner base but it should have better support for backups
As for what can be improved, right now we don't use the MySQL cluster. There is a MySQL cluster that you can run in a standalone mode, like a single database or you can do it in a cluster master-slave implementation. The cluster is not the best when it comes to MySQL. That's why we switched to MariaDB. For that simple reason that the cluster there is better. It's more manageable and it's easier to work with. We decide what to use depending on the needs. For example, if we need to mount something in a cluster mode, we use MariaDB, which again, is a Dockerized solution with a Helm chart as well, and it's very easy for us to deploy and manage, and also to scale when you just increase the number of slave versions. So MySQL doesn't have that great support when it comes to clusters. You can definitely use MySQL for that too, both support clustering, but the MariaDB is better. Additional features that I would like to see included in the next release of this solution include better support for backups. Because if you go with the MySQL Percona version, it gives you the tools to back it up securely. The vanilla version of MySQL doesn't have that. It actually does have it, but it is just really poorly executed. I would improve the backup system as well as the encryption. To make it smoother right now takes too much work. It should be a little bit smoother to backup the encrypted data the way you want it and have the ability to push it anywhere you want. That is not part of it right now. Now it is a database, so you don't know what you're going to do with it. It's difficult. You're just going to come up with solutions. But I think you can generalize here and come up with really simple solutions, which we have already in MySQL. That's probably the one thing that I would try and push right now for people to switch. But people are still not biting, because if you go with the managed version, then all the backups are taken care of for you by Amazon or Google or Microsoft. Then you really don't care. But for us, since we're doing it locally, self-hosted, we would like to have better tools for locking up the data. Right now, one aspect that is also linked to backups is running things in a crosscheck with semi-managed solutions. This requires a bit of a context. Since we're running things within the clustered communities, we're kind of pushing the Cloud into the cluster. We also want to push some of the tools for the database into a cluster, as well. So these are what we call Kubernetes operators. And there's MySQL operators that were first developed by the community. Those kind give you the ability to backup data within the cluster. So now you have a fully managed solution running from your cluster. These are called MySQL Kubernetes operators. We are looking into those right now to upgrade our solution, which would mean that we can just execute our backup natively within Kubernetes, not via special scripts. This would make it much easier to actually deal with any kind of MySQL issues within the cluster, because it would be cluster-native. That's what the operators are for. I think Oracle just created a really good one. It surprised me that they have this. It's not because of Oracle, but they got pushed by the community and actually created the MySQL Operator for Kubernetes, and that's what we're moving towards. This is going to give you an ability to have a cloud-managed solution within the cluster. And then you can ask the MySQL Operator for the database. They'll partition the database and give it to you. So it will change the nature from you deploying it to you just asking the cluster to give you a database. It's a fully managed solution right from the cluster. So that's what we're heavily looking into right now. We'll be switching to using Kubernetes MySQL Operators. It's a high-availability cluster running within the Kubernetes cluster. Right now we're pretty good with that. It's working fine. We're trying to find some time to actually release that globally everywhere. That's where I am right now. But in terms of technology, if you give up Oracle, you just go to a MySQL operator. That's the one we're using, what we're actually looking at - to create, operate and scale mySQL and sell it within the cluster. This idea of having a cognitive MySQL becomes much easier to manage within the cluster, as well. So you don't have to go with the cloud solution with AWS or Google cloud or Amazon MySQL or the Microsoft version. The Oracle SuperCluster is the Oracle MySQL operator. That's what we we are looking into a lot right now. Mainly because it does backups on demand - it's so easy to backup. You can just tell Kubernetes to backup and you don't have to run special scripts or special extra software or codes to back it up. You can make the backup as you would do anything else. Send a backup or some other data source or insert an Elasticsearch into it here. Just say "Kubernetes, back it up" and you know Oracle has this adapters within the cluster to back it up for you taking increments or different companies. So that makes it really nice and easy to use and to deploy. With that kind of solution you can ask to class or petition the database how you want. So again, it changed the nature of the kind of push-to-pull second nature system. Are you pushing your containers to a cluster? You just say cluster, "give me a database" and the class gives you the base partition database, creates a database in a secure manner, gives the connection to the database, and you're done. Then you can back it up on a schedule on to any backup switches. It's much easier. So once this goes, it is going to be widely adopted, which it should be. But I think people might not have the tech skills right now. But once it's adaptive, maybe in a few more months, it's going to be the number one solution for everybody. In terms of what I'd like to see in the next release, one thing that's always missing is dash boarding. There's no real BI tool for MySQL, like there is in Yellowfin and all the different tools that you get. They all have MySQL connectors, but there's no specific BI tool for MySQL. Open source projects have sprung up, but they're more general purpose, like Postgress, a MySQL kind of database, a relational database. I don't see any really nice tool like Cabana for elastic searches that I can tell clients to use because it would be too technical for them. They would have to have more technical engagement with writing the course, drag and drop, and creating a graph like in Power BI where you just connect with DIA. So I'd like to see the grab and drag and drop tables, nice beautiful graphics, and pie charts. You don't necessarily have that with MySQL like you have other solutions, which are really cost prohibitive for some clients. It'd be nice to have an open source solution for that. Decent solutions. I mean decent that I can take to clients. It's so technical. They want to drag and drop.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Data Warehouse solutions are best for your needs.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user232068 - PeerSpot reviewer
Aug 5, 2015
Netezza vs. Teradata
Original published at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/should-i-choose-net Two leading Massively Parallel Processing (MPP) architectures for Data Warehousing (DW) are IBM PureData System for Analytics (formerly Netezza) and Teradata. I thought talking about the similarities and differences…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
74%
Financial Services Firm
6%
Computer Software Company
3%
Insurance Company
2%
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about IBM Netezza Performance Server?
IBM Netezza Performance Server is a cost-effective solution.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IBM Netezza Performance Server?
The solution has a yearly licensing fee, and users have to pay extra for support.
What needs improvement with IBM Netezza Performance Server?
Oracle Exadata's security features, like TDE encryption, are missing in IBM Netezza Performance Server.
Why are MySQL connections encrypted and what is the biggest benefit of this?
MySQL encrypts connections to protect your data and the biggest benefit from this is that nobody can corrupt it. If you move information over a network without encryption, you are endangering it, m...
Considering that there is a free version of MySQL, would you invest in one of the paid editions?
I may be considered a MySQL veteran since I have been using it since before Oracle bought it and created paid versions. So back in my day, it was all free, it was open-source and the best among sim...
What is one thing you would improve with MySQL?
One thing I would improve related to MySQL is not within the product itself, but with the guides to it. Before, when it was free, everyone was on their own, seeking tutorials and how-to videos onli...
 

Also Known As

Netezza Performance Server, Netezza
No data available
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Seattle Childrens Hospital, Carphone Warehouse, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Battelle, Start Today Co. Ltd., Kelley Blue Book, Trident Marketing, Elisa Corporation, Catalina Marketing, iBasis, Barnes & Noble, Qualcomm, MediaMath, Acxiom, iBasis, Foxwoods
Facebook, Tumblr, Scholastic, MTV Networks, Wikipedia, Verizon Wireless, Sage Group, Glassfish Open Message Queue, and RightNow Technologies.
Find out what your peers are saying about Snowflake Computing, Oracle, Teradata and others in Data Warehouse. Updated: November 2024.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.