I would say I'm satisfied with technical support, buy it can be improved also. And as an entire table, whatever its size, I can pin the table in the RAM so that my access of information is not from the hard disk, but is directly from the memory, which is much, much, much faster. I can combine all the tables and make a huge table. That was a primary condition, but in HANA, thanks to the cheap storage and high-speed RAM, I may not even bother to do a redundancy of data. Now, instead of populating the tables with the same information, the primary condition of RDBMS was to have a foreign key relationship between these two tables and reduce the redundancy. The second table is employee career details or his project, something like that. For example, if I have five to six tables, suppose the first table is employment information. This impacted the primary condition for RDB and RDBMSs like Oracle, Sybase, SQL Server, and the like, that they need to support the foreign key relationship, where I have a few tables. So the SAN device cost reduced by more than 200%.Īlso, in parallel, the RAM cost also decreased, and the technology and the fastness of RAM increased. The same SAN device, in 20, was costing around three LAKs. I don't know about British Pounds, but in Indian Rupees, earlier in 2007, 2008, when I was working for Microsoft, one terabyte of a SAN device, used to cost around 22.5 LAK. HANA became a success because the cost of the solar devices has fallen down substantially. The success of HANA primarily depends on the RAM and the storage. So SAP HANA is based on this column-level architecture. That is not RDBMS, that is a column-level database.
Sybase has one more variant called Sybase IQ. I'm afraid that HANA is not a relational database, it's a column-level database just like Sybase IQ. Sybase is also an activity product, an SAP product. This initial version of HANA was not that great, it had a lot of bugs. But before that, before I jumped into the version, I used the initial version of HANA, as well.