Now it may seem strange that somebody whose SQL – does exactly what it says on the tin post clearly marks him out as an RDBMS fanboy, can also sing the praises of a noSQL database. Are they not mutually exclusive? To many, particularly in the noSQL world, this appears to be the case, with some clearly determined to re-invent the wheel, ignoring the lessons learned by relational database practitioners.

The main advantage to me of document-oriented databases, such as CouchDB, is the ease of setup and subsequent pain-free evolution of data models that comes with a schema-less database. The main disadvantage is the relative rigidity of downstream analysis built into most such databases. MapReduce, such as used by CouchDB, is fine for predefined views developed by programmers, but as we know, reporting never stops; datastores front-ended by a SQL interpreter open up the data within to a much wider audience (be that through hand-crafted SQL queries or more likley via reporting-tool generated SQL)

Of course document-oriented, noSQL, schema-less datastores have been all the rage with end-users for close on 30 years. They’re called spreadsheets. Excel has over the years added features (such as list handing & filtering) that have made the spreadsheet the database of choice for millions. Anybody who deals in corporate data is aware (sometimes painfully aware) of just how much data is stored in these Data Populi repositories.

I, as an IT professional, am aware that Excel workbooks as books-of-record, have been, and continue to be, the cause of many data quality problems. Yet, I’ve also seen, and am myself responsible for, many successful Excel ‘database implementations’. Take for example, my filing system.

I don’t have a filing cabinet, instead I use small stackable cardboard boxes to store documents. As I receive or generate documents I simply place them in the current open box. Every so often, usually prompted by a VAT or other tax return deadline looming, I record what’s in the box, and if the box is looking full or maybe it’s end-of-year, I’ll ‘close’ the box and open a new one.

Each box is represented by a separate workbook, each document by a separate worksheet. Some documents such as electronic Sales Invoices may not require a physical copy simply a link to a PDF, but I still tend to store a printed copy. Others, such as Purchase Invoices, have their details manually copied from the original paper based document, I usually also add a hyperlink to an image of the source document. (I no longer use my scanner, instead I use my phone camera to record paper documents).

Bank reconciliation involves recording the bank item ref against the appropriate document and linking back to the Bank Statement worksheet  (which as I still receive paper-statements consists simply of a link to a photo of the statement and basic info such as date of statement and whether or not I’ve reconciled it).

VAT Return documents are generated using links back to source documents and a link to an image of the completed paper return (not yet signed up for ROS). Similar documents are generated for year-end tax returns & accounts.

So my ‘filing system’ is also my ‘accounts system’. This is common practice amongst small (and not so small) businesses. The advantage of this approach rather than using a “proper accounts system”  is the simplicity and the in-depth knowledge it forces me to have of ‘my data’.

But can this type of thing scale, and what of the businesses that are using similar systems to manage thousands or indeed 10s of thousands of documents or transactions? The simple answer is no,  at least not without a semi-automated process and a cost-effective means of analysing the data; many such systems are on the road to disaster. That disaster may take the form of data quality issues or the significant (and often hidden) cost of operating such systems (often the operators are highly paid accounting staff or managers whose cost is buried in general overhead costs, unlike internal or external IT resources whose time tends to be project allocated).

But again, I and others, have managed to setup systems such as these that were  cost-effective (not just in initial construction but in ongoing running costs) and managed to maintain data quality. This usually involved building a simple work-flow process, automating to some degree but keeping the human touch as much as possible. My xLite datasmithing platform had its beginnings in such RSS (Really Simple Systems) scenarios. Many such “systems” were IT driven ETL processes or data cleansing initiatives, others, business initiatives such as sales planning/budgeting or customer surveys.

I haven’t used xLite to automate my filing system (my transactional volumes are too low and my motto when it comes to systems is, “good enough” will do), instead, relying on standard spreadsheet formulas and few bits of VBA, but if I suddenly found myself at the business end of a fire-hose of documents I could easily do so.

Much like CouchDB, I could  create ‘map’ views of my documents, but instead of MapReduce Javascript code, I’d  load the documents into SQLite tables (using a duck typing approach; if the document had the required data, e,g, Invoice No, etc. for Sales Invoices, load, otherwise ignore). The ‘reduce’ part would then be standard SUM(), Group By SQL statements.

I could also mine the documents for text and then use SQLite’s FTS full-text searching to create a free-format search index or use xLite’s TAG Cube functionality for a more formal, hierarchy supporting, tagging index.

If I needed to share the system with others in my organisation I could use a light simple distributed version control system such the SQLite based  Fossil. This would allow for many of the replication benefits that CouchDB offers.

In fact, if I wanted to backend the system with a server based database I could call in the services of CouchDB itself. Easily done as xLite has inbuilt Python support and the library that xLite uses to interact with SQLite on the Python side is APSW. And guess what, APSW now includes a virtual table implementation that lets you access CouchDB databases from SQLite. Excel as a front-end to CouchDB!

If the ‘it does exactly what it says on the tin‘  Ronseal catch-phrase epitomises SQL  then perhaps ‘ Simples‘ as Alexandr the Meerkat might say epitomises the potential of document-based databases.

Why not join me on Twitter at gobansaor?

I’d not bothered with Excel 2007, as I couldn’t see the advantage over Excel 2003, but Excel’s new PowerPivot is one hell of a reason to upgrade to 2010. I’d preformed a quick test against 2007 by installing a trial version on an EC2 Window’s image and it had appeared to work fine; but it was a different story under 2010,strange things started to happen.

The core functionality, as tested by VBA code, worked OK but when I tested using xLite.SQL as a UDF (a user defined “formula”) things fell apart. For an explanation of what the xLite.SQL function is and why I wasn’t that surprised when it started to act up, see here. As xLite.SQL plays to the rules rather than the spirit of a UDF, I assumed it was pay back time  for my blasé ignoring of functional programming constraints and I set about tracking down the cause.

It turns out the cause is a change in behaviour (a bug) whereby in certain circumstances the cell range returned by Application.Caller is not, as one would expect, the cell hosting the called UDF but that cell more usually associated with Application.ActiveCell (i.e. most likely the cell where the cursor currently resides).

Why is this a problem and what is Application.Caller usually used for? The most common use I’ve made of Application.Caller is to determine whether a VBA function had been called from a cell as a UDF or from a menu, button or some VBA code. This is important because when called in UDF mode, a function must be side-effect free, i.e. its only affect on the workbook is the return value; attempting anything else will silently fail (or in extreme cases, abort Excel). This functionality is not affected by “the bug” as the usual method of achieving this is by …

If IsObject(Application.Caller) Then

… this will work even if Application.Caller returns .ActiveCell, as both are objects.

If however, various properties of that range need to be interrogated (such as the actual address or the formula text that xLite.SQL requires) then Application.Caller in certain circumstances returning the .ActiceCell range rather than the calling cell’s range causes problems. I’ve managed to get around these problems by adding an extra parameter (homeCell) to xLite.SQL which the function will auto populate on first entry (when Application.Caller and .ActiveCell are guaranteed to be the same object). For example, a SQL call entered in cell A2 of Sheet1 as ..

=SQL(“Select name from sqlite_master”)

is automatically rewritten as …

=SQL(“Select name from sqlite_master”,,,,,,”[test.xls]Sheet1!$A$2″)

Not ideal but it gets around the problem in the short term.  Long term I may do a version for sub-2010 reverting back to original dependence on Application.Caller. As xLite studiously avoids Excel’s UI features such as menus/ribbons I’d hope to avoid different versions for pre/post ribbon editions, but needs must.

The xLiteWorkbook example (test_call_workbook_function.xls calling test_workbook_function.xls) consistently generates the bug (there’s a SQL call against the log database at the end to test for this). Executing the same logic manually on the called workbook (test_workbook_function.xls) generally doesn’t, but it has done so occasionally!

I’ve messed around changing the .xls files to .xlsm in case of compatibility problems but it doesn’t appear to affect the outcome.

If anybody else has come across this problem or has an alternative to using Application.Caller to return a UDF’s calling cell’s range, do let me know.

Why not join me on Twitter at gobansaor?

See http://www.gobansaor.com/xlite

The u() function allows any VBA UDF (user defined functions) to be called from SQLite.

The x() function allows an inbuilt function or indeed most any formula (but not a UDF, use u() instead) to be called from SQLite.

The f() function allows for standard worksheet cascading formulas to be referenced by SQL, in effect, worksheet user defined functions.  Really useful in building & testing workbook code/models.

Finally, xLitePyScript is a UDF that allows Python to be used as an Excel scripting language.  Can either be inserted into a SQL statement wrapped by the u() function or called like a regular function from VBA or as a cell formula.

Have fun …

Excel’s primary use for many is as a utility for making and managing lists. Lists are the bedrock of commercial data processing, not nested structures such as XML or JSON, just good old, simple as it can get, lists. (I’ve written about this before in Tables Vs XML, the data lingua franca debate.) User generated tables downloaded from great list-generating beasts such as ERP or CRM systems are crucial in the day-to-day running of all businesses. (CRM is essentially yet another maker and manager of lists).

It was MS’s recognition of this use-case and the subsequent re-engineering of the spreadsheet concept to better support lists that (alongside packaging it with Word, PowerPoint and Outlook in a single integrated product) helped make Excel the top dog in the spreadsheet world. It is of course this same primacy of the list that exposes Excel to ever growing competition from good enough online spreadsheets products such as Google Docs and Zoho, hence the free Office 2010 Web Apps to stem the loss of entry-level mindshare.

Excel as a list handler may be its mass market appeal, but it is as an end-user focused calculation, transformation and reporting engine that it really shines. It is here that MS’s dominance of the spreadsheet market is secure but often it seemed that MS lost sight of this side of the Excel market, populated by the people I would call datasmiths; things like the Excel 2007’s emphasis on the Ribbon, which many serious users saw as fluff and change for change sake, and the dropping of VBA support from the Mac version of Office (now reversed), come to mind. But with the upcoming 2010 version, MS looks like it has regained that old time religion with new datasmith focused features such as new and improved formulae, sparklines and, my favourite, the  PowerPivot addon.

What makes Excel (and spreadsheets in general) work so superbly as an end-user datasmithing tool?  In the spreadsheets-in-general category I’d venture:

• Immediacy; design and run in the one environment, change a formula or change some data, immediate feedback.
• Tactile ownership of a solution; no you can’t actually touch the dataset but it feels like you can; you can view it, filter it, save it somewhere safe, stop, have a cup of coffee then resume working on it,and this is very important, only share your workings when you’re good and ready.
• Functional programming via formulae; the no side-effects other than a return value in the host cell seems to make formula programming attractive to a much large sub-set of “civilians” that is the case with even the simplest of script-based programming languages.

In the Excel specific category:

• The Excel object-model scripted by VBA; although formula programming is the bread’n'butter of Excel development, VBA, in the hands of both professionals and gifted-amateurs, provides the “solve-any-problem” magic dusting.
• The Pivot Table (and now in 2010, the PowerPivot); the killer-app within a killer-app, this is the single feature that most Excel datasmiths just cannot give up.

iPod users like freedom and convenience and so do Excel users, woe betide any IT organisation that fails to recognise this, and worse still, attempts to take this freedom away!

Why not join me on Twitter at gobansaor?

The trick behind TM1, Essbase, Palo etc. is the extension of the spreadsheet metaphor from two to multiple dimensions, while still binding the interface closely to the familiar spreadsheet (which for most of the business world is still Excel).

So where does SQLite come in all this?

At first glance, SQLite lacks the sophisticated join functionality to support star-queries, but of course, if the dataset is small then a full-table scan of a fact table, or better still, loading the fact table into memory negates any such short-comings.

In fact, all traditional ROLAP engines have problems with dimensional models, particularly when you reach the point of using summary tables or query re-writes, that’s why the emerging SQL-speaking columnar-databases are such a godsend for ROLAP data warehouses.

It was SQLite combined with Excel acting as a data prep platform that was originally my main interest, so for pivoting, Excel’s own pivot table would have to do.  Nevertheless, I felt the tool was incomplete without the ability to directly pivot the underlying SQLite database.

Why not use Palo or Mondrian as a pivot tool? Well yes, where a fixed permanent “solution” is required then the extra moving parts of either approach would be justified and indeed necessary but that is to miss the essence of what I call datasmithing.

Datasmithing is not data warehousing nor is it the provision of solutions (which, for example, Palo superbly enables in multi-user budgeting situations). Datasmithing, as a skill, is of course part of the process of both, but it’s on the edges, at perhaps the planning or consumption stages.

Datasmiths deal in the unknown, in change, in disaster recovery, in systems’ commissioning, in the never-ending barely-repeatable processes thrown up by daily business life.  For that, the toolset required must be as simple as possible (but no simpler), self-contained, document-oriented, secureable (is that a word?) and easily archived and retrieved. Excel and file-based DBMSs such as MSAccess or SQLite fit the bill nicely, server-based technologies such as DBA controlled database servers or IT installed “solutions”, less so.

Jedox has made Palo relatively easy to install (and likewise, Canada’s SQLPower has made Mondrian setup a painless exercise via their excellent Wabit reporting tool), but, the zero-install, email friendly document approach that spreadsheets are famous (and infamous) for, is preferable in many situations. This is something that Microsoft have recognised in their Gemini add-in for Excel 2010, but Excel 2010 is a not here yet and it’s likely to be five years or more before it’s as common as Excel 2003 is today.

The inclusion of FTS full-text searching with SQLite triggered an ah-ah moment with regards to pivot-enabling SQLite.

The usual method that hypercube-like excel-friendly OLAP tools use to return data is via a UDF like so…

=DATA(“CubeName”,”value1″,value2″,…)

…where valueN represents dimensional elements, so…

=DATA(“SalesCube”,”Beer”,”Profit”,”Jan 09″,”Actual”)

…is the Actual Profit for Beer sales in Jan 09. The dimensional elements act as “tags” to locate a particular value, there is of course much more to tools like Palo; hierarchies, intra-cube rules etc. but in essence most OLAP tools are like www.delicious.com for number crunchers. This method of retrieving data fits well with how people use Excel and not just for pivots, but for embedding OLAP aggregated cells in lists.  For example, a CRM scenario; a Sales Rep makes a list of her ‘best’ (subjective) customers, but needs hard (objective) stats, to be placed alongside the list to convince the boss or to track actuals against expectation.

Dimensional elements as tags; FTS3 virtual tables as fact table indexes; the concept of a TAG Cube was born.

In the above example “Profit” would most likely be described as a measure (Palo, a near pure hypercube does not distinguish between Measure and other Dimensional coordinates). Dimensions, measures and attributes are in reality interchangeable (a Customer ID can act as a dimension or an attribute, but by applying a  Count Distinct to it, it’s a measure) but most OLAP solutions treat “Measure Dimensions” as different, and so do TAG Cubes.

By using the default fact table structure (a single-columned table) and querying using the default measure (which translates to the SUM() of that single value) a ‘pure’ approach can be used. But, ROLAP is tightly bound to the concept of a fact table, and since SQLite is relational, TAG Cubes offer the ability to use a wide fact table approach and I think gains considerably in flexibility by so going.

The above example of using Count Distinct, or the simple creation of calculated measures are examples of this flexibility. Another, is a measure based on SQLite’s concat_group aggregate function to provide a drill-down facility, e.g.

=DATA(“SalesCUBE”,”ROWIDList,”Beer”,”Jan 09″,”Actual”)

…where “ROWIDList” would be setup as concat_group(rowid,’,') and will return a comma separated list of the underlying fact table ROWIDs.

A major reason for rolling my own pivot engine was to add a concept of “namespaces” and to separate the implementation of these namespaces from the actual pivot.  When a tag (or a predefined hierarchy of tags) is assigned to a cube, it’s also assigned to a namespace, in many cases namespace and cube would be synonymous, but in some cases a more sophisticated approach is required:

• Multiple cubes sharing the same set of conformed dimensions would be best served by such cubes sharing a common namespace, and so they can.
• Different consumers of the pivot may require the use of a different language, be that a spoken language or a different ‘business language’ e.g. Manufacturing Product Codes V Consumer Product Names. Again, easily done.
• Sometimes identifying data can’t be shared with the datasmith or the numerical analyst working on a problem; in such cases being able to replace  the actual namespace with an obfuscated one can be very useful. Or, for added security, the namespace might only be issued to approved  PCs while the tag index and fact table are stored on a shared drive.  Needs some more work to make managing such scenarios secure and easy to use but the structure is there.

As hinted on above, the three elements of a Tag Cube, the namespace, tag index and fact table can be assigned to different databases (i.e. files). Due to the wonders of SQLite’s ATTACH statement and the backup API’s ability to quickly load/unload databases in/out of memory, it’s possible, for example, to load namespace and tag index (i.e. the ‘dimensions’) into a memory database, while a very large (i.e. too big to fit to memory) fact table remains on disk. Fast and cheap SSDs will add further configuration options.

Although most of the TAG Cube functionality is available only within Excel, I’ve built a C based SQLite Virtual Table (cFact) to allow the tag index to used outside xLite. This means that SQLite drivers for ODBC (for use as a Pivot Table source, for example) or JDBC (for use in  SQLPower Wabit perhaps) can efficiently access data models built using xLite.

I had to revert to using C rather than my preferred Python (did I mention that xLite now embeds Python in Excel, no, well it does, Python the newVBA ?), having failed to get around multi-threading issues with callbacks to Python in both the ODBC and JDBC drivers. I’d make a career promise to myself many years ago, not to having anything to do with printers or threads, and I think I’ll stick with it

TAG Cubes are the latest addition (still WIP actually) to be added to xLite, adding to:

• VBA coded SQLite SQL functions.
• Worksheet Functions; call out to a ‘function’ built using Excel formula, passing a parameter list and returning a value.
• Workbook Functions; like Worksheet Functions, but loading a new Workbook, passing in parameters, passing back a value (or tables) and closing the Workbook when finished.
• XLiteScript; xLite exposes its functionality via VBA coded UDFs, which can be called like any other formula, but data prep activities often require sequential procedural logic, xLiteScript is a table-oriented scripting mechanism offering basic flow-control logic.
• pyScript; I embedded Python into xLite to take advantage of Python’s speed in developing Virtual Tables, SQL Functions and extensions to SQLite and to tap in the wonderful world of Python code. I’ve also added the ability to use Python from scripts defined within Excel (to indent, tab to the next cell!).
• Fast load/unload to/from CSV.
• Load from any ADO source.
• Remove xLite formulae and rename and save Workbook, very handy when used via Workbook Functions to mass produce Excel “reports”.
• Other WIP items are; load from SAP, load/unload to/from Amazon S3, use Palo cubes as TAG Cube “facts”, slot in/out Palo for TAG Cubes, auto-generate Mondrian XML based on TAG Cubes, write-back and splash, Python & VBA TAG Cube “rules”.

I’ve started the process of releasing the beta code here …

Why not join me on Twitter at gobansaor?

I removed the SQLite dependent parts (which allowed me to load meta-data into tables and analyse using SQL) and used a pure-VBA MD5 hash routine to reduce the number of moving parts. Also added a few VBA helper routines (including an array-formula UDF to allow direct calling of the API from Excel UI).

As I said, I originally built it as a learning aid but I’ve started to look at it again in the context of a an Excel/Sqlite Palo ETL add-on.  Having the flexibility of the native API and my own meta-data cache in SQLite might prove very useful.

The code may be found here.  Enjoy!

Why not join me on Twitter at gobansaor?

Although the announcement in April was essentially vapour-ware (no Worksheet Server V3, no Amazon EC2 images), one very significant actual deliverable was the addition to SourceForge of the Palo Excel Add-in sources (GPL licence).  This, at least for me, is very welcome as it now means that Palo is truly open source.  Prior to this, the server sources were GPL’d but not the main front-end tool used by the vast majority of end-users. In fact, the deep Excel integration offered by the Add-In is Palo’s main attraction to the business-focused “datasmiths” who make up the bulk of the product’s user-base.

The GPL’ing of the Add-in has removed the last barrier that had stopped me, as an independent consultant, from committing to the platform.  While the ‘freeness’ of open source is nice, it’s the source that really attracts me.  With access (and rights) to the source, I have no worries that the terms of use or indeed the product’s core functionality can be arbitrarily changed.  Having the source also means I can delve as deep or as shallow as I need to into the inners of the product, improving my understanding of the technology (both bugs and functionality) as needs dictate.

What has Palo BI Suite to offer, besides being open source?  Well, even if Jedox’s offering consisted of mediocre products, being open source as I explained above is in itself a huge advantage. Having an agnostic FOSS pivot engine that can be shared across many technologies, from Excel to Open Office to a PHP based website, is extremely useful.

However, Jedox’s BI suite is far from mediocre.  Palo is now a very polished and powerful in-memory MOLAP server with excellent integration with Excel (through the Add-In, or if you take out a support contract, via ODBO/MDX powered Pivot Tables).  The addition of a browser delivered spreadsheet (Worksheet Server V3) will add significantly to the product’s street appeal.  Version 3 differs significantly from previous WSS versions; being open source is one, but the entire product was also completely redesigned to meet the challenge posed by web-based products from the likes of Zoho, EditGrid and of course Google Docs (not to mention the ever-present threat of a MS response). Web-based spreadsheets are becoming a commodity, so Jedox’s response was to open source the product but at the same time make it more usable for real-world business analytics.

Current browser-delivered spreadsheets suffer from two shortcomings;

• Spreadsheets with large numbers of inter-related cells (typical of business models ) tend to perform poorly, in many cases being unusable compared with Excel or Open Office.
• Only available as hosted SaaS; not a major problem for some businesses, but for others, services outside the corporate firewall, especially for sensitive information such as what-if, budgeting and sales analysis models, are a no-no.

WWS V3 gets around both problems.  Performance is improved by the use of Palo as the spreadsheet’s pivot engine but also by the “lazy calculation” of related cells i.e. a cell that’s not visible, and itself not yet referenced by other visible cells, remains uncalculated, saving on the constant churning that can effect large models.  This combined with a DynaRange concept means templates and models react dynamically and efficiently to the ever changing datasets being presented to the sheets from the Palo OLAP server.   The look’n’feel is very similar to Excel with even array-formulae being fully supported.

The second problem of only-behind-the-firewall access is solved by the open source GPL licence and by the front-end being coded in PHP (very approachable to most in-house support staff and even the odd accountant).  The core (the bit not yet released) is, as far as I know, C++, so is likely to join Palo Server as being highly efficient and well engineered but perhaps beyond the technical skills of most.

The other elements to the BI Suite are the web-based OLAP-centric ETL Server (now, I see, with Groovy and Javascript scripting support) and the Supervision Server (only in paid Enterprise version) which offers fine-tuned access control and monitoring, plus drill-through functionality from Palo cells, back to the ETL fact tables. The Enterprise Edition also offers a multi-core version of the Palo server along with SAP and ODBO/MDX connectivity.

If multi-dimensional analysis and budgeting could benefit your business and spreadsheets are your preferred method of communicating and working with such analysis, you need to check this out.  Palo is a well kept secret (at least outside of Germany), hardly ever mentioned by the mainstream BI community, but don’t let that put you off; this is one of the best solutions out there, it’s open source but also comes with the backup of a professional company that can offer not just technical support but also implementation know-how (Jedox eats its own dog-food, being both a BI consultancy and development house).

Update July 4th 2009:

Beta Community Edition is now available.   I downloaded and installed WWS V3 and gave it a quick test-drive; looks good, Palo interface has the look’n'feel of the Excel Add-in and the general spreadsheet functionality is very Excel-like, incluing CTRL-Shift-Enter to assign array formulae.  Overall, the Palo BI suite offers a intuitive end-user-friendly interface; from download to effective use in less than 60 minutes, how many BI tools could you say that about?

Also, in two weeks time a pivot-table friendly ODBO driver will be included for free with the Palo Excel Add-in (previously only available to those with a Jedox support contract).

Why not join me on Twitter at gobansaor?

From a micro-BI perspective, the ability to act as a backup/mirroring tool or as ETL/marshaling tool (anybody for Hadoop and SQLite?) attracts. I’ve yet to make up my mind on BI delivered as a cloud PaaS but obviously many others believe it has a future.

My main worry with PaaS is not lock-in (which exists equally for in-house proprietary solutions) but the dangers of a Coghead-like lock-out.  My other doubts are more technical; believing, as I do, that in-memory offers significant advantages over traditional ROLAP (simplicity been the main one) and multi-tenant in-memory architectures are not yet a runner.  But last week I had a demo of new Spanish BI PaaS service, LiteBI, which might just change my mind.

Javier Giménez Aznar and his team previously worked on delivering Pentaho based datawarehouses to large Spanish corporations and government agencies, so they have a deep understanding of Mondrian ROLAP and are using that knowledge to build the LiteBI service, but this time with SMBs as the target customers rather than corporates. Pricing starts at €145 per month and is based on number of concurrent users, number of analytical spaces and the data volumes, so it’s not for very small firms more for the Medium in SMB.

Impressions? The cube designer, dashboard builders and the general UI are all very good and I would think would appeal to end-user datasmiths and, as such, will be a major up-front aid to selling this product.  But it was LiteBIs approach to the thorny issue of ETL and data loading that impressed me and also helped ease some of my Coghead-induced-fears.

BI technology stacks consist of three elements:

• The “fancy” front-end; graphs,animated dashboads and so on.
• The pivot engine; ROLAP or MOLAP or both.
• The ETL process.
• (Many would say there’s an important 4th, the data-warehouse, but not every BI effort requires one, but that’s another issue)

LiteBI is continuing to build yet more functionality into their UI and this “fancy” front-end is essential as it’s their “shop window”.

Mondrian provides their pivot engine, and again they continue to work on optimisations such as column-based datastores to increase speed and automate responsiveness tuning (end-users are very unforgiving of slow pivots).

But it’s in the 3rd area, that of the ETL process, that you realise the LiteBI team has real-world BI experience.  Data is loaded into LiteBI via an API, but with the ETL process itself happening on the customer side.

“Well,so what?” you may ask. The extraction of data has to obviously happen customer-side (even though not in the case of data being sourced from the likes of SalesForce.com). Yes, but it’s the transformations and data cleansing that adds true value to the ETL process and subsequently determines the quality and usefulness (as opposed to the speed or the “prettiness” of delivery) of the solution.

Part of the process of adopting LiteBI, is an ETL consultancy stage where a LiteBI partner company will provide on-site services to build this ETL layer, handling not just transformations but initial load and automating the subsequent delta uploads.

So the cost mounts up, but in reality you can’t do BI without this investment; there’s no ETL magic bullet.  Even still, Javier says the typical go-live time for a LiteBI project would be in the order of 3-4 weeks rather than the 3-4 months of similar on-site Pentaho projects.

The end-user ‘owning’ the ETL process makes the prospect of a service lock-out slightly less worrying as, at least, one would still have a good starting point for moving to another provider or back in-house. What I would really like to see would be the option to self-host LiteBI, which I guess would involve open sourcing large parts of the service (the automated optimisation strategies could, for example, be excluded from this open source version).

The load API comes packaged as a plugin to Kettle (aka PDI) and the intention is to offer a similar add-on for Talend in the near future. LiteBI also offers a white-label offering whereby 3rd party OLTP solution providers can use the service as their product’s BI suite.

Like the Skibbereen Eagle keeping its eye on the Czar of Russia, I too will be keeping a watchful eye on LiteBI and the march of on-demand BI in general.

Why not join me on Twitter at gobansaor?

Project Gemini (now called PowerPivot) is due to be delivered as a free add-in to the next version of Excel (2010) ,like the Analysis ToolPak or the Data Mining add-ins for Excel 2003.  (See this OLAP Report Project Gemini, Microsoft’s Brillaint Trojan Horse for a good overview of the tool).

Donald Farmer ,who works on the project, having seen the SQLite as the MP3 of data post and recognising that the use cases behind combining SQLite with Excel were similar to those of Project Gemini, kindly offered me a demo of the product.  Well, the phrase “Excel on steroids” has been much used in the past (in particular of add-ins such as Essbase, Palo or TM1) but this “ya gotta see”, Donald likes to call it XXL.

Millions of rows of data in-memory on a 4GB PC being “modeled” using a “user-friendly” pivot-table-like interface. And when I say, modeled, the user isn’t being confronted with concepts such as dimensions, levels, attributes, facts and so on, but a classic star schema model is nevertheless being built behind the scenes.  And it’s this model that allows Gemini to escape some of the inadequacies of pivot tables, e.g. allowing for rules and hierarchies to be defined.  The resulting model can then be saved and shared as a file (keeping to the document-centric ethos of Excel) but it can also be posted to and managed by SharePoint.

SharePoint will be extended to allow the IT function to manage and audit shared models to whatever degree the organisation requires, but the single file format will also allow smaller groups to share without the need for IT involvement (essential if bottom-up adoption is to be encouraged).  SharePoint will also add the “Web2.0 collaboration layer”.

How will MS make money from this if it’s free?  The first clue is the SharePoint backend, more functionality means more reasons to purchase and use MS’s server stack and the same applies to Excel itself. I, like many others, are very happy using Excel 2003 and look on Excel 2007 the same way the market in general has looked on Vista; i.e. pretty, but lacking a strong enough reason to upgrade unless forced to do so. (Excel 2007 also has the ribbon issue, not one I find a major problem myself, but others do).  But I would upgrade to a version Excel that offered Project Gemini capabilities and I’m sure others would follow (and more importantly to MS’s revenues, thousands of corporate accounts would too).

Project Gemini offers proof that MS realises, what those of us on the ground have know for years, that BI projects are in the main, Excel-centric; all the ‘hard sums’  and awkward decisions end-up back on the desktop.  MS has decided to publicly recognise that fact and profit from it. The timing is both economically and technically opportune; PC speed and cheap memory means that a huge chunk of even a large corporation’s datasets can be analysed by a PC (according to this, the median size of original data in OLAP datasets is about 5GB); and there’s obvious cost-benefits for companies facing difficult times requiring more to be done with fewer resources.

What will the effect be on tools such as Essbase, TM1, Palo etc. ?  Well, let me put it this way, if their owners are making strategic plans for 2010 onwards and they’re not taking account of the Gemini effect perhaps they should.  Most likely Gemini will help increase the overall market for OLAP tools, with the incumbents tending to specialise in their existing niches (e.g. Palo in Budgeting, with the added value of being free and open source, which has a premium over just being ‘free’).

So will I put away my Excel-SQLite fixation then? No, for two reasons:

• Project Gemini is not here yet, and the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Also, when it does appear it will only apply to Excel 2010 (or whatever) and as many companies are still on Office 2000 (and a few on 97!), it’ll be at least  5 years before a significant percentage of sites upgrade.
• The SQLite addition to Excel offers not just BI capabilities but also makes a nimble ETL and data integration engine. I’m also experimenting with Amazon S3 integration to enable simple work-flows for small distributed teams (or even same-office groups where the WAN is the new LAN).

Whether you agree or not in the validity of  ”workgroup BI“, be aware that MS does and it thinks that BI is about to enter a new phase,  for proof see MS’s Nic Smith’s The History of Business Intelligence video.

UPDATE: 19th Nov 2009

Last evening I downloaded for the 1st time both Excel 2010 Beta and the PowerPivot (new name for Gemini) add-in.  First impressions; yep, in the flesh it’s just as impressive as the above demo led me to believe it would be.  As I said on Twitter last night Datasmiths of the world; download the Excel 2010 Beta and PowerPivot add-in; this ya gotta see!!!

Why not join me on Twitter at gobansaor?

When I tell people that I use SQLite in combination with Excel (via xLite) as my datasmithing platform, many ask why SQLite? (Many others ask why Excel?  but “sin scéal eile”, that’s another discussion – Excel as the iPod of Downloaded Data.) Those that question my use of SQLite tend to cluster into four camps:

• Pure Excel jocks.
• MS Access fans.
• The client server database brigade (SQL Server,Oracle; or if FOSS fans; MySQL, PostrgeSQL).
• The MOLAP folks (Essbase, TM1, Palo).

Now while I have used and will continue to use/encounter all four ‘approaches’, I’ve come to believe over the last couple of years that SQLite brings something special to the datasmithing game. When I look back over nearly 30 years in the data handling business I keep thinking – “If only I had SQLite then, how much easier/quicker/cheaper that task would have been!”.

Just as “fractional horsepower” electrical motors revolutionised manufacturing and eventually all our lives (car starter-motors, fridge motors, washing machines etc.), “fractional horsepower” databases can do the same for data. Distributing data to where it is needed.

As operational local caches, this use of SQLite is already far advanced. SQLite is embedded in lots of every day software tools, everything from McAfee anti-virus to TweetDeck Twitter clients (best one IMHO). But my interest is more in SQLite’s potential as a micro-BI (or maybe more correctly a distributed-BI) platform. A sort of MP3 format for distributed structured data, if you like.

But why SQLite (and in particular SQLite in combination with Excel) as my datasmithing tool rather than the four other approaches?  First, what’s a datasmith?

Managing and manipulating datasets has become an integral part of many people’s job, not just accountants (the original of the species) but marketing executives, sales staff, pricing analysts, process engineers; different job titles, different roles but using a skill that they’ve likely never been formally trained in, a skill without a name; a skill I call datasmithing. I like to think of  myself as a master datasmith, or a datamith’s datasmith.

If you consider yourself a datasmith then most likely the tool you use to manage your datasets is Excel. And before you apologise, don’t. Excel is by far the best and most flexible end-user data manipulation tool out there. Everything from the current financial crisis downwards has at some stage being blamed on Excel, but you know and I know that many tasks would remain undone or under-done were it not for end-user generated spreadsheets.

Spreadsheets are not however optimal for some tasks, linked spreadsheets in particular are data disasters in waiting. While fantastic for data transformations and presentations, as books-of-record they’re rarely suitable. Other tools such as SQL based relational databases and in-memory OLAP offer much better and potentially much more cost-effective data modelling functionality, but also at a cost of extra complexity and ongoing technical support.

MS Access (which like SQLite, is a document-centric, non-client-server database; but unlike it, is also a forms/reporting development environment) would appear to be the natural local store database. My problem with MS Access has been its tendency to try to be all things to all men, ending up not fully satisfying anybody. Professional developers think it’s too limiting, non-techs find it too intimidating, even reporting, where it once showed promise left a big enough opening for Crystal Reports to evolve. It is also limited to Windows which might not seem to be a problem if combining with Excel, but, as it’s often necessary, due to scale or complexity of the data,  to use ‘proper’ ETL tools such as Talend, having an OS agnostic database format than can act as a distribution media (think MP3s again) between “mixing desks” can be very useful.

The big difference to MS Access for me is SQLite’s open source code; code that’s a pleasure to browse and with an approachable API that even I, with my very rusty C skills, can manipulate. Having access to that code allows me to tightly integrate it with Excel, so much so, that I can use Excel functions (built-in functions, VBA user-defined functions and 3rd party add-in functions) directly from SQLite’s SQL; and vice-versa, access SQL functionality via Excel “formula” calls. It is  also possible to  load most datasets into memory using SQLite’s in-memory mode enabling very fast processing  and near zero-latency when passing data to and from Excel/VBA. In the near future, cheap, large SSDs will enable non-memory databases to offer similar speed but also handle extremely large datasets (see this for a glimpse of that future).

What about the big beasts of the data world, the client-server databases? Having spent most of my professional life working with such tools I’m aware of the power of a well designed relational database. If SQLite is the MP3, then these are the master tapes, the DDD recordings. Most of the data that eventual ends up in SQLite for analysis and/or transformation will have originated in data-warehouses or be directly sourced  from OLTP systems built using relational technology. But for close-up analysis and transformation, the pure simplicity and convenience of SQLite is hard to beat. That simplicity is primarily due to its Excel-like ‘document’ nature, all code and data can be housed in a single folder (or true-crypt container for added security), ensuring that the ‘problem domain’ can be easily archived and/or shared with others without the need for professional IT resources.

And yes, I hear you, isn’t that the basis of Excel-hell? Yes it is, but over the years I’ve found that this is rarely a problem for datasmiths, they deal day-in day-out with document work-flows, they understand the risks and the benefits (mainly the simplicity) of the approach. Where the nightmare truly happens is when this approach is used as an alternative to an OLTP system i.e. using Excel and other document-like datastores as books-of-record in large multi-user environments – “there be monsters for sure”.

How about MOLAP? Wasn’t Essbase’s name derived from “extended spreadsheet database” and doesn’t Palo offer a truly excel-friendly multi-user database back-end? Again, having worked with Essbase for many years and now being a big fan of the open source Palo MOLAP tool, I fully appreciate the power that such tools brings to analysis and multi-user planning tasks. But for many situations, an Excel Pivot Table is “good enough” and even when it’s not, it is possible by utilising what I call a tOLAP cube (essentially, a fact table indexed via tags enabled by Google’s great addition to SQLite, the FTS3 virtual table) to build and access  powerful, yet simple, cube-like data structures.

By integrating SQLite with Excel, datasmiths can have the best of both worlds, familiar spreadsheet front-end combined with a fast and powerful SQL engine and datastore, in fact, everything that MS Access should have been.

Why not join me on Twitter at gobansaor?