Interview: Viper set to strike

With the delivery in 2006 of the next version of DB2, code-named Viper, IBM's quest for a database that hooks up structured and unstructured data and that supports queries by SQL and Xquery might reach its end. At least that is the belief of Janet Perna, general manager of IBM Software's information management division. Perna sees Viper, expected to enter formal beta testing by September, as big a step forward technologically -- as big a leap as the one made in going from hierarchical to relational databases. However, she says this transition should be significantly easier for larger IT shops because Viper is already built on relational technology and contains a much heavier dose of XML, which will make integration, development, and integration easier.

Perna sat down with InfoWorld Editor at Large Ed Scannell to discuss the upcoming product, which is expected to go head to head with archrival Oracle's flagship database as well as fend off Microsoft's efforts on the low end, and its strategic importance to Big Blue's overall integration strategy.

InfoWorld: Will Viper finally be the crystallization of the long-held dream of integrating structured and unstructured data?

Perna: Yes, I think so. First, you must understand that XML is pervasive to everything we are doing in information management, whether it involves managing structured and unstructured information, or as a transport, or mapping standards for integrating information. It becomes part and parcel of things.

InfoWorld: So XML is fundamentally responsible for next-generation databases, like Viper, taking a giant step forward in their evolution?

Perna: Yes. It will be as dramatic as when we went from hierarchical to relational data bases. Now, did that happen overnight? No. The world didn't just turn and go to relational on day one. But when it did, it was very significant. This will be as revolutionary as that move was.

InfoWorld: What do larger IT shops users need to consider from a technology standpoint before they commit to Viper?

Perna: [Viper] will be easier than the move to relational because it is already built on a relational base. All the same skills can apply, such as administration and the tooling. What has changed is largely under the hood. So the question is how quickly will they move to building a lot of [XML-based] applications and have a lot of XML documents. It is beginning to evolve right now, but everyone won't be doing it on day one. However, on day one anyone can adopt Viper without changing their skills, people, and tools. They will also get a performance benefit, and an ease-of-administration benefit. And they will have the ability to build applications that marry structured and unstructured data.

InfoWorld: Do you see XML as increasingly important to marrying structured and unstructured data? Has XML progressed enough over the past three or four years to make that happen?

Perna: Yes, because there will be more and more XML content being produced and delivered. Why did people go from hierarchical to relational databases? Well, it was easier to design for and the query language made it very easy to get information out of the database. You look at XML in relational [databases] today -- does it work? Sure. Can we make it easier to use and perform better? Sure. And as there is more and more XML content created that will become more important. As we build out our metadata and metadata management capabilities in DB2, XML will be a key underpinning of that.