Big Data Storage
Martin Strohbach, J
org Daubert, Herman Ravkin, and Mario Lischka
This chapter provides an overview of big data storage technologies which served as
an input towards the creation of a cross-sectorial roadmap for the development of
big data technologies in a range of high-impact application domains. Rather than
elaborating on concrete individual technologies, this chapter provides a broad
overview of data storage technologies so that the reader may get a high level
understanding about the capabilities of individual technologies and areas that
require further research. Consequently, the social and economic impacts are
described, and selected case studies illustrating the use of big data storage technol-
ogies are provided. The full results of the analysis on big data storage can be found
in Curry et al. (2014).
The position of big data storage within the overall big data value chain can be
seen in Fig. 7.1. Big data storage is concerned with storing and managing data in a
scalable way, satisfying the needs of applications that require access to the data.
The ideal big data storage system would allow storage of a virtually unlimited
amount of data, cope both with high rates of random write and read access, ﬂexibly
and efﬁciently deal with a range of different data models, support both structured
and unstructured data, and for privacy reasons, only work on encr ypted data.
M. Strohbach (*) • J. Daubert
AGT International, Hilpertstr, 35, 64295 Darmstadt, Germany
e-mail: MStrohbach@agtinternational.com; email@example.com
Department of Industrial Engineering, Tel-Aviv University, Ramat-Aviv, Tel-Aviv 69978,
acentrix GmbH, Erika-Mann-Strasse 69, 80636 Munich, Germany
© The Author(s) 2016
J.M. Cavanillas et al. (eds.), New Horizons for a Data-Driven Economy ,
Obviously, all these needs cannot be fully satisﬁed. But over recent years many new
storage systems have emerged that at least partly address these challenges.
This chapter provides an overview of big data storage technologies and identiﬁes
some areas where further research is required. Big data storage technologies are
referred to as storage technologies that in some way speciﬁcally address the
volume, velocity, or variety challenge and do not fall in the category of relational
database systems. This does not mean that relational database systems do not
address these challenges, but alternative storage technologies such as columnar
stores and clever combinations of different storage systems, e.g. using the Hadoop
Distributed File System (HDFS), are often more efﬁcient and less expensive (Marz
and Warren 2014).
Big data storage systems typically address the volume challenge by making use
of distributed, shared nothing architectures. This allows addressing increased stor-
age requirements by scaling out to new nodes providing computatio nal power and
storage. New machines can seamlessly be added to a storage cluster and the storage
system takes care of distributing the data between individual nodes transparently.
Storage solutions also need to cope with the velocity and variety of data.
Velocity is important in the sense of query latencies, i.e. how long does it take to
get a reply for a query? This is particularly important in the face of high rates of
incoming data. For instance, random write access to a database can slow down
query performance considerably if it needs to provide transactional guarante es. In
contrast, variety relates to the level of effort that is required to integrate and work
with data that originates from a large number of different sources. For instance,
graph databases are suitable storage systems to address these challenges.
• Structured data
• Data streams
• Stream mining
• Linked Data
• Data discovery
• ‘Whole world’
• Community data
• Data Quality
• Trust / Provenance
• Data validation
• Top-do w n / B o t t o m-
• Community /
• Curation at scale
• In-Memory DBs
• NoSQL DBs
• NewSQL DBs
• Cloud storage
• Query Interfaces
• Scalability and
• Data Models
• Security and
• Decision support
• In-use analytics
Big Data Value Chain
Fig. 7.1 Data storage in the big data value chain
See for instance the map of 451 Research available at https://451research.com/state-of-the-
120 M. Strohbach et al.
Section 7.2 summarizes key insights and Sect. 7.3 illustrates the social and
economic impact of data storage. Section 7.4 presents the current state-of-the-art
including storage technologies and solutions for security and privacy. Section 7.5
includes future requirements and emerging trends for data storage that will play an
important role for unlocking the value hidden in large datasets. Section 7.6 presents
three selected case studies, and the chapter is concluded in Sect. 7.7.
7.2 Key Insights for Big Data Storage
As a result of the analysis of current and future data storage technologies, a number
of insights were gained relating to data storage technologies. It became apparent
that big data storage has become a commodity business and that scalable storage
technologies have reached an enterpr ise-grade level that can manage virtually
unbounded volumes of data. Evidence is provided by the widespread use of
Hadoop-based solutions offered by vendors such as Cloudera (2014a),
Hortonworks (2014), and MapR (2014) as well as various NoSQL
vendors, in particular those that use in-memory and columnar storage technologies.
Compared to traditional relational database management systems that rely on
row-based storage and expensive caching strategies, these novel big data storage
technologies offer better scalability at lower operational complexity and costs.
Despite these advances that improve the performance, scalability, and usability
of storage technologies, there is still signiﬁcant untapped potential for big data
storage technologies, both for using and further developing the technologies:
• Potential to Transform Society and Businesses across Sectors: Big data
storage technologies are a key enabler for advanced analytics that have the
potential to transform society and the way key busi ness decisions are made.
This is of particular importance in traditionally non-IT-based sectors such as
energy. While these sectors face non-technical issues such as the lack of skilled
big data experts and regulatory barriers, novel data storage technologies have the
potential to enable new value-generating analytics in and across various indus-
• Lack of Standards Is a Major Barrier: The history of NoSQL is based on
solving speciﬁc technological challenges which lead to a range of different
storage technologies. The large range of choices coupled with the lack of
standards for querying the data makes it harder to exchange data stores as it
may tie application speciﬁc code to a certain storage solution.
• Open Scalability Challenges in Graph-Based Data Stores: Processing data
based on graph data structures is beneﬁcial in an increasing amount of applica-
tions. It allows better capture of semantics and complex relationships with other
NoSQL is typically referred to as “Not only SQL”.
7 Big Data Storage 121
pieces of information coming from a large variety of different data sources, and
has the potential to improve the overall value that can be generated by analysing
the data. While graph databases are increasingly used for this purpose, it remains
hard to efﬁciently distribute graph-based data structure across computing nodes.
• Privacy and Security Is Lagging Behind: Although there are several projects
and solutions that address privacy and security, the protection of individual s and
securing their data lags behind the technological advances of data storage
systems. Considerable research is required to better understand how data can
be misused, how it needs to be protected and integrated in big data storage
7.3 Social and Economic Impact of Big Data Storage
As emerging big data technologies and their use in different sectors show, the
capability to store, manage, and analyse large amounts of heterogeneous data hints
towards the emergence of a data-driven society and economy with huge transfor-
mational potential (Manyika et al. 2011). Enterprises can now store and analyse
more data at a lower cost while at the same time enhancing their analytical
capabilities. While companies such as Google, Twitter, and Facebook are
established play ers for which data constitutes the key asset, other sectors also
tend to become more data driven. For instance, the health sector is an excellent
example that illustrates how society can expec t better health services by better
integration and analysis of health-related data (iQuartic 2014).
Many other sectors are heavily impacted by the maturity and cost-effectiveness
of technologies that are able to handle big datasets. For instance, in the media sector
the analysis of social media has the potential to transform journalism by summa-
rizing news created by a large amount of indi viduals. In the transport sector, the
consolidated data management integration of transport systems has the potential to
enable personalized multimodal transportation, increasing the experience of trav-
ellers within a city and at the same time helping decision-makers to better manage
urban trafﬁc. In all of these areas, NoSQL storage technologies prove a key enabler
to efﬁciently analyse large amounts of data and create additional business value.
On a cross-sectorial level, the move towards a data-dr iven economy can be seen
by the emergence of data platforms such as datamarket.com (Gislason 2013),
infochimp.com, and open data initiatives of the European Union such as open-
data.europa.eu and other national portals (e.g. data.gov , data.gov.uk, data.gov.sg)
(Ahmadi Zeleti et al. 2014). Technology vendors are supporting the move towards a
data-driven economy as can be seen by the positioning of their products and
services. For instance, Cloudera is offering a product called the enterprise data
hub (Cloudera 2014b), an extended Hadoop ecosystem that is positioned as a data
management and analysis integration point for the whole company.
Further to the beneﬁts described above, there are also threats to big data storage
technologies that must be addressed to avoid any negative impact. This relates for
122 M. Strohbach et al.
instance to the challenge of protecting the data of individuals and reducing the
energy consumption of data centres (Koomey 2008).
7.4 Big Data Storage State-of-the-Art
This section provides an overview of the current state-of-the-art in big data storage
technologies. Section 7.4.1 describes the storage technologies, and Sect. 7.4.2 pre-
sents technologies related to secure and privacy-preserving data storage.
7.4.1 Data Storage Technologies
During the last decade, the need to deal with the data explo sion (Turner et al. 2014)
and the hardware shift from scale-up to scale-out approaches led to an explosion of
new big data storage systems that shifted away from traditional relational database
models. These approaches typically sacriﬁce properties such as data consistency in
order to maintain fast query responses with increasing amounts of data. Big data
stores are used in similar ways as traditional relational database management
systems, e.g. for online transactional processing (OLTP) solutions and data ware-
houses over structured or semi-structured data. Particular strengths are in handling
unstructured and semi-structured data at large scale.
This section assesses the current state-of-the-art in data store technologies that
are capable of handling large amo unts of data, and identiﬁes data store related
trends. Following are differing types of storage systems:
• Distributed File Systems: File systems such as the Hadoop File System (HDFS)
(Shvachko et al. 2010) offer the capability to store large amounts of unstructured
data in a reliable way on commodity hardware. Although there are ﬁle systems
with better performance, HDFS is an integral part of the Hadoop framework
(White 2012) and has already reached the level of a de-facto standard. It has
been designed for large data ﬁles and is well suited for quickly ingesting data and
• NoSQL Databases: Probably the most important family of big data storage
technologies are NoSQL database management system s. NoSQL databases use
data models from outside the relational world that do not necessarily adhere to
the transactional properties of atomicity, consistency, isolation, and durability
• NewSQL Databases: A modern form of relational databases that aim for
comparable scalability as NoSQL databases while maintaining the transactional
guarantees made by traditional database systems.
• Big Data Querying Platforms: Technologies that provide query facades in
front of big data stores such as distributed ﬁle systems or NoSQL databases. The
7 Big Data Storage 123
main concern is providing a high-level interface, e.g. via SQL
languages and achieving low query latencies.
220.127.116.11 NoSQL Databases
NoSQL databases are designed for scalability, often by sacriﬁcing consistency.
Compared to relational databases, they often use low-level, non-standardized query
interfaces, which make them more difﬁcult to integrate in existing applications that
expect an SQL interface. The lack of standard interfaces makes it harder to switch
vendors. NoSQL databases can be distinguished by the data models they use.
• Key-Value Stores: Key-value stores allow storage of data in a schema-less way.
Data objects can be completely unstructured or structure d and are accessed by a
single key. As no schema is used, it is not even necessary that data objects share
the same structure.
• Columnar Stores: According to Wikipedia “A column-oriented DBMS is a
database management system (DBMS) that stores data tables as sections of
columns of data rather than as rows of data, like most relational DBMSs”
(Wikipedia 2013). Such databases are typically sparse, distributed, and persis-
tent multi-dimensional sorted maps in which data is indexed by a triple of a row
key, column key, and a timestamp. The value is represented as an uninterrupted
string data type. Data is accessed by column families, i.e. a set of related column
keys that effectively compress the sparse data in the columns. Colum n families
are created before data can be stored and their number is expected to be small. In
contrast, the number of columns is unlimited. In principle columnar stores are
less suitable when all columns need to be accessed. However in practice this is
rarely the case, leading to superior performance of columnar stores.
• Document Databases: In contrast to the values in a key-value store, documents
are structured. However, there is no requirement for a common schema that all
documents must adhere to as in the case for records in relational databases. Thus
document databases are referred to as storing semi-structured data. Similar to
key-value stores, docum ents can be queried using a unique key. However, it is
possible to access documents by querying their internal structure, such as
requesting all documents that contain a ﬁeld with a speciﬁed value. The capa-
bility of the query interface is typically dependent on the encoding format used
by the databases. Common encodings include XML or JSON.
• Graph Databases: Graph databases, such as Neo4J (2015), store data in graph
structures making them suitable for storing highly associative data such as social
network graphs. A particular ﬂavour of graph databases are triple stores such as
AllegroGraph (Franz 2015) and Virtuoso (Erling 2009) that are speciﬁcally
Here and throughout this chapter SQL refers to the Standard Query Language as deﬁned in the
ISO/IEC Standard 9075-1:2011.
124 M. Strohbach et al.
designed to store RDF triples. However, existing triple store technologies are not
yet suitable for storing truly large datasets efﬁciently.
While in general NoSQL data stores scal e better than relational databases,
scalability decreases with increased complexity of the data model used by the
data store. This particularly applies to graph databases that support applications
that are both write and read intensive. One approach to optimize read access is to
partition the graph into sub-graph s that are minimally connected between each
other and to distribute these sub-graphs between computational nodes. However, as
new edges are added to a graph the connectivity between sub-graphs may increase
considerably. This may lead to higher query latencies due to increased networks
trafﬁc and non-local computations. Efﬁcient sharding schemes must therefore
carefully consider the overhead required for dynamically re-distributing graph data.
18.104.22.168 NewSQL Databases
NewSQL databases are a modern form of relational data bases that aim for compa-
rable scalability with NoSQL databases while maintaining the transactional guar-
antees made by traditional database systems. According to Venkatesh and Nirmala
(2012) they have the following characteristics:
• SQL is the primary mechanism for application interaction
• ACID support for transactions
• A non-locking concurrency control mechanism
• An architecture providing much higher per-node performance
• A scale-out, shared-nothing architecture, capable of running on a large number
of nodes without suffering bottlenecks
The expectation is that NewSQL systems are about 50 times faster than tradi-
tional OLTP RDBMS. For example, VoltDB (2014) scales linearly in the case of
non-complex (single-partition) queries and provides ACID support. It scales for
dozens of nodes where each node is restricted to the size of the main memory.
22.214.171.124 Big Data Query Platforms
Big data query platforms provide query facades on top of underlying big data stores
that simplify querying the underlying data stores. They typically offer an SQL-like
query interface for accessing the data, but differ in their approach and performance.
Hive (Thusoo et al. 2009) provides an abstraction on top of the Hadoop Distrib-
uted File System (HDFS) that allows structured ﬁles to be queried by an SQL-like
query language. Hive executes the queries by translating queries in MapReduce
jobs. As a consequence, Hive queries have a high latency even for small datasets.
Beneﬁts of Hive include the SQL- like query interface and the ﬂexibility to evolve
schemas easily. This is possibl e as the schema is stored independently from the data
7 Big Data Storage 125
and the data is only validated at query time. This appro ach is referred to as schema-
on-read compared to the schema-on-wri te approach of SQL databases. Changing
the schema is therefore a comparatively cheap operation. The Hadoop columnar
store HBase is also supported by Hive.
In contrast to Hive, Impala (Russel 2013) is designed for executing queries with
low latencies. It re-uses the same metadata and SQL- like user interface as Hive but
uses its own distributed query engine that can achieve lower latencies. It also
supports HDFS and HBase as underlying data stores.
Spark SQL (Shenker et al. 2013) is another low latency query fac¸ade that
supports the Hive interface. The project claims that “it can execute Hive QL queries
up to 100 times faster than Hive without any modiﬁcation to the existing data or
queries” (Shenker et al. 2013). This is achieved by executing the queries using the
Spark framework (Zaharia et al. 2010) rather than Hadoop’s MapReduce
Finally, Drill is an open source implementation of Google’s Dremel (Melnik
et al. 2002) that similar to Impala is designed as a scalable, interactive ad-hoc query
system for nested data. Drill provides its own SQL-like query language DrQL that
is compatible with Drem el, but is designed to support other query languages such as
the Mongo Query Language. In contrast to Hive and Impala, it supports a range of
schema-less data sources, such as HDFS, HBase, Cassandra, MongoDB, and SQL
126.96.36.199 Cloud Storage
As cloud computi ng grows in popularity, its inﬂuence on big data grows as well.
While Amazon, Microsoft, and Google build on their own cloud platforms, other
companies including IBM, HP, Dell, Cisco, Rackspace, etc., build their proposal
around OpenStack, an open source platform for building cloud systems (OpenStack
According to IDC (Grady 2013), by 2020 40 % of the digital universe “will be
‘touched’ by cloud computing”, and “perhaps as much as 15 % will be maintained
in a cloud”.
Cloud in g eneral, and particularly cloud storage, can be used by both enterprises
and end users. For end users, storing their data in the cloud enables access from
everywhere and from every device in a reliable way. In addition, end users can use
cloud storage as a simple solution for online backup of their desktop data. Similarly
for enterprises, cloud storage provides ﬂexible access from multiple locations and
quick and easy scale capacity (Grady 2013) as well as cheaper storage prices and
better support based on economies of scale (CloudDrive 2013) with cost effective-
ness especially high in an environment where enterprise storage needs are changing
over time up and down.
Technically cloud storage solutions can be distinguished between object and
block storage. Object storage “is a generic term that describes an approach to
addressing and manipulating discrete units of storage called objects” (Margaret
126 M. Strohbach et al.
Rouse 2014a). In contrast, block storage data is stored in volumes also referred to as
blocks. According to Margaret Rouse (2014b), “each block acts as an individual
hard drive” and enables random access to bits and pieces of data thus working well
with applications such as databases.
In addition to object and block storage, major platforms provide support for
relational and non-relational database-based storage as well as in-memory storage
and queue storage. In cloud storage, there are signiﬁcant differences that need to be
taken into account in the application-planning phase:
• As cloud storage is a service, applica tions using this storage have less control
and may experience decreased performance as a result of networking. These
performance differences need to be taken into account during design and imple-
• Security is one of the main concerns related to public clouds. As a result the
Amazon CTO predicts that in ﬁve years all data in the cloud will be encrypted by
default (Vogels 2013).
• Feature rich clouds like AWS supports calibration of latency, redundancy, and
throughput levels for data access, thus allowing users to ﬁnd the right trade-off
between cost and quality.
Another important issue when considering clou d storage is the supported con-
sistency mode l (and associated scalability, availability, partition tolerance, and
latency). While Amazon’s Simple Storage Service (S3) supports eventual consis-
tency, Microsoft Azure blob storage supports strong consistency and at the same
time high availability and partition tolerance. Microsoft uses two layers: (1) a
stream layer “which provides high availability in the face of network partitioning
and other failures”, and (2) a partition layer which “provides strong consistency
guarantees” (Calder et al. 2011).
7.4.2 Privacy and Security
Privacy and secur ity are well-recognized challenges in big data. The CSA Big Data
Working Group published a list of Top 10 Big Data Security and Privacy Chal-
lenges (Mora et al. 2012). The following are ﬁve of those challenges that are vitally
important for big data storage.
188.8.131.52 Security Best Practices for Non-relational Data Stores
The security threats for NoSQL databases are similar to traditional RDBMS and
therefore the same best practices should be applied (Winder 2012). However, many
security measures that are implemented by default within traditional RDBMS are
missing in NoSQL databases (Okman et al. 2011). Such measures would include
7 Big Data Storage 127
encryption of sensitive data, sandboxing of processes, input validation, and strong
Some NoSQL suppliers recommend the use of databases in a trusted environ-
ment with no additional security or authentication measures in place. However, this
approach is hardly reasonable when moving big data storage to the cloud.
Security of NoSQL databases is getting more attention by security researchers
and hackers, and security will further improve as the market matures. For example,
there are initiativ es to provide access control capabilities for NoSQL databases
based on Kerberos authentication modules (Winder 2012).
184.108.40.206 Secure Data Storage and Transaction Logs
Particular security challenges for data storage arise due to the distribution of data.
With auto-tiering, operators give away control of data storage to algorithms in order
to reduce costs. Data whereabouts, tier movements, and changes have to be
accounted for by transaction log.
Auto-tiering strategies have to be carefully designed to prevent sensitive data
being moved to less secure and thus cheaper tiers; monitoring and logging mech-
anisms should be in place in order to have a clear view on data storage and data
movement in auto-tiering solutions (Mora et al. 2012).
Proxy re-encryption schemes (Blaze et al. 2006) can be applied to multi-tier
storage and data sharing in order to ensure seamless conﬁdentiality and authenticity
(Shucheng et al. 2010). However, performance has to be improved for big data
applications. Transaction logs for multi-tier operations systems are still missing.
220.127.116.11 Cryptographically Enforced Access Control and Secure
Today, data is often stored unencrypted, and access control solely depends on a
gate-like enforcement. However, data should only be accessible by authorized
entities by the guarantees of cryptography—likewise in storage as well as in
transmission. For these purposes, new cryptographic mechanisms are require d
that provide the required functionalities in an efﬁcient and scalable way.
While cloud storage providers are starting to offer encryption, cryptographic key
material should be generated and stored at the client and never handed over to the
cloud provider. Some products add this functionality to the application layer of big
data storage, e.g., zNcrypt, Protegrity Big Data Protection for Hadoop, and the Intel
Distribution for Apache Hadoop (now part of Cloudera).
Attribute-based encryption (Goyal et al. 2006) is a promising technology to
integrate cryptography with access control for big data storage (Kamara and Lauter
2010; Lee et al. 2013; Li et al. 2013).
128 M. Strohbach et al.
18.104.22.168 Security and Privacy Challenges for Granular Access Control
Diversity of data is a major challenge due to equally diverse security requirements,
e.g., legal restrictions, privacy policies, and other corporate policies. Fine-grained
access control mechanisms are needed to assure compliance with these requirements.
Major big data components use Kerberos (Miller et al. 1987) in conjunction
with token-based authentication, and Access Control Lists (ACL) based upon users
and jobs. However, more ﬁne-grained mechanism, for instance Attribu te-Based
Access Control (ABAC) and eXtensible Access Control Markup Language
(XACLM), are required to model the vast diversity of data origins and analytical
22.214.171.124 Data Provenance
Integrity and history of data objects within value chains is crucial. Traditional
provenance governs mostly ownership and usage. With big data however, the
complexity of provenance metadata will increase (Glav ic 2014).
Initial efforts have been made to integrate provenance into the big data ecosys-
tem (Ikeda et al. 2011; Sherif et al. 2013); however, secure provenance requires
guarantees of integrity and conﬁdentiality of provenance data in all forms of big
data storage and remains an open challenge. Furthermor e, the analysis of very large
provenance graphs is computationally intensive and requires fast algorithms.
126.96.36.199 Privacy Challenges in Big Data Storage
Researchers have show n (Acquisti and Gross 2009) that big data analysis of
publicly available information can be exploited to guess the social security number
of a person. Some products selective ly encrypt data ﬁelds to create reversible
anonymity, depending on the access privileges.
Anonymizing and de-identifying data may be insufﬁcient as the huge amount of
data may allow for re-identiﬁcation. A roundtable disc ussion (Bollier and Firestone
2010) advocated transparency on the handling of data and algorithms as well as a
new deal on big data (Wu and Guo 2013) to empower the end user as the owner of
the data. Both options not only involve organization transparency, but also techni-
cal tooling such as Security & Privacy by Design and the results of the EEXCESS
EU FP7 project (Hasan et al. 2013).
7 Big Data Storage 129
7.5 Future Requirements and Emerging Paradigms for Big
This section provides an overview of future requirements and emerging trends.
7.5.1 Future Requirements for Big Data Storage
Three key areas have been identiﬁed that can be expected to govern future big data
storage technologies. This includes standardization of query interfaces, increasing
support for data security, protection of users ’ privacy, and the support of semantic
188.8.131.52 Standardized Query Interfaces
In the medium to long-term NoSQL databases would greatly beneﬁt from standard-
ized query interfaces, similar to SQL for relational systems. Currently no standards
exist for the individual NoSQL storage types beyond de-facto standard APIs for
graph databases (Blueprints 2014) and the SPARQL data manipulation language
(Aranda et al. 2013) supported by triplestore’s vendors. Other NoSQL databases
usually provide their own declarative language or API, and standardization for
these declarative languages is missing.
While for some database categories (key/value, document, etc.) declarative
language standardization is still missing, there are efforts discussing standardiza-
tion needs. For instance the ISO/IEC JTC Study Group on big data has recently
recommended that existing ISO/IEC standards committee should further investi-
gate the “deﬁnition of standard interfaces to support non-relational data stores”
(Lee et al. 2014).
The deﬁnition of standardized interfaces would enable the creation of a data
virtualization layer that would provide an abstraction of heterogeneous data storage
systems as they are commonly used in big data use cases. Some requirements of a
data virtualization layer have been discussed online in an Infowor ld blog article
184.108.40.206 Security and Privacy
Interviews were conducted with consultants and end users of big data storage who
have responsibility for security and privacy, to gain their personal views and
insights. Based upon these interviews and the gaps identiﬁed in Sect. 7.4.2, several
future requirements for security and privacy in big data storage were identiﬁed.
130 M. Strohbach et al.
Data Commons and Social Norms Data stored in large quantities will be subject
to sharing as well as derivative work in order to maximize big data beneﬁts. Today,
users are not aware how big data processes their data (transparency), and it is not
clear how big data users can share and obtain data efﬁciently. Furthermore, legal
constraints with respect to privacy and copyright in big data are currently not
completely clear within the EU. For instance, big data allows novel analytics
based upon aggregated data from manifold sources. How does this approach affect
private information? How can rules and regulations for remixing and derivative
works be applied to big data? Such uncertainty may lead to a disadvantage of the
EU compared to the USA.
Data Privacy Big data storage must comply with EU privacy regulations such as
Directive 95/46/EC when personal information is being stored. Today, heteroge-
neous implementations of this directive render the storage of personal information
in big data difﬁcult. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDRP)—ﬁrst pro-
posed in 2012—is an on-going effort to harmonize data protection among EU
member states. The GDRP is expected to inﬂuence future requirements for big
data storage. As of 2014, the GDRP is subject to negotiations that make it difﬁcult
to estimate the ﬁnal rules and start of enforcement. For instance, the 2013 draft
version allows data subjects (persons) to request data controllers to delete personal
data, which is often not sufﬁc iently considered by big data storage solutions.
Data Tracing and Provenance Tracing and provenance of data is becoming
more and more important in big data storage for two reasons: (1) users want to
understand where data comes from, if the data is correct and trustworthy, and what
happens to their results and (2) big data storage will become subject to compliance
rules as big data enters critical business processes and value chains. Therefore, big
data storage h as to maintain provenance metadata, provide provenance along the
data processing chain, and offer user-friendly ways to understand and trace the
usage of data.
Sandboxing and Virtualization Sandboxing and virtualization of big data ana-
lytics becomes more important in addition to access control. According to econo-
mies of scale, big data analytics beneﬁt from resource sharing. However, security
breaches of shared analytical components lead to compromised cryptographic
access keys and full storage access. Thus, jobs in big data analytics must be
sandboxed to prevent an escalation of security breaches and therefore unauthorized
access to storage.
220.127.116.11 Semantic Data Models
The multitude of heterogeneous data sources increases development costs, as
applications require knowledge about individual data formats of each individual
source. An emerging trend is the semantic web and in particular the semant ic sensor
web that tries to address this challenge. A multitude of research projects are
7 Big Data Storage 131
concerned with all levels of semantic modelling and computation. As detailed in
this book, the need for semantic annotations has for instance been identiﬁed for the
health sector. The requirement for data storage is therefore to support the large-
scale storage and management of semantic data models. In particular trade-offs
between expressivity and efﬁcient storage and querying need to be further explored.
7.5.2 Emerging Paradigms for Big Data Stora ge
There are several new paradigms emerging for the storage of large and complex
datasets. These new paradigms include, among others, the increased use of NoSQL
databases, convergence with analytics frameworks, and managing data in a central
18.104.22.168 Increased Use of NoSQL Databases
NoSQL databases, most notably graph databases and columnar stores, are increas-
ingly used as a replacement or complement to existing relational systems.
For instance, the requirement of using semantic data models and cross linking
data with many different data and information sources strongly drives the need to be
able to store and analyse large amounts of data using graph-based models. How-
ever, this requires overcoming the limitation of current graph-based systems as
described above. For instance, Jim Webber states “Graph technologies are going to
be incredibly important” (Webber 2013). In another interview, Ricardo Baeza-
Yates, VP of Research for Europe and Latin America at Yahoo!, also states the
importance of handling large-scale graph data (Baeza-Yates 2013). The Microsoft
research project Trinity achieved a signiﬁcant breakthrough in this area. Trinity is
an in-memory data storage and distributed processing platform. By building on its
very fast graph traversal capabilities, Microsoft researchers int roduced a new
approach to cope with graph queries. Other projects include Goog le ’s knowledge
graph and Facebook’s graph search that demonstrate the increasing relevance and
growing maturity of graph technologies.
22.214.171.124 In-Memory and Column-Oriented Designs
Many modern high-performance NoSQL databases are based on columnar designs.
The main advantage is that in most practical applications only a few columns are
needed to access the data. Conseque ntly storing data in columns allows faster
access. In addition, column-oriented databases often do not support the expensive
join operations from the relational world. Instead , a common approach is to use a
single wide column table that stores the data based on a fully denormalized schema.
132 M. Strohbach et al.
According to Michael Stonebraker “SQL vendors will all move to column stores,
because they are wildly faster than row stores” (Stonebraker 2012a).
High-performance in-memory databases such as SAP HANA typically combine
in-memory techniques with column-based designs. In contrast to relational systems
that cache data in-memory, in-memory databases can use techniques such as anti-
caching (DeBrabant et al. 2013). Harizopoulos et al. have shown that the most time
for executing a query is spent on administrative tasks such as buffer management
and locking (Harizopoulos et al. 2008).
126.96.36.199 Convergence with Analytics Frameworks
During the course of the project many scenarios have been identiﬁed that call for
better analysis of available data to improve operations in various sectors. Techni-
cally, this means an increased need for complex analytics that goes beyond simple
aggregations and statistics. Stonebraker points out that the need for complex
analytics will strongly impact existing data storage solutions (Stonebraker 2012b).
As use case speciﬁc analytics are one of the most crucial components that are
creating actual business value, it becomes increasingly important to scale up these
analytics satisfying performance requirements, but also to reduce the overall devel-
opment complexity and cost. Figure 7.2 shows some differences between using
separate systems for data management and analytics versus integrated analytical
188.8.131.52 The Data Hub
A central data hub that integrates all data in an enterprise is a paradigm that
considers managing all company data as a whole, rather than in different, isolated
databases managed by different organizational units. The beneﬁt of a central data
hub is that data can be analysed as a whole, linking various datasets owned by the
company thus leading to deeper insights.
Typical technic al implementations are based on a Hadoop-based system that
may use HDFS or HBase (Apache 2014) to store an integrated master dataset. On
one hand, this master dataset can be used as ground truth and backup for existing
data management systems, but it also provides the basis for advanced analytics that
combine previously isolated datasets.
Companies such as Cloudera use this paradigm to market their Hadoop distri-
bution (Cloudera 2014b ). Many use cases of enterprise data hub exis t already. A
case study in the ﬁnancial sector is described in the next section.
7 Big Data Storage 133
7.6 Sector Case Studies for Big Data Storage
In this section three selected use cases are described that illustrate the potential and
need for future storage technologies. The health use case illustrates how social
media based analytics is enabled by NoSQL storage technologies. The second use
case from the ﬁnancial sector illustrates the emerging paradigm of a centralized
data hub. The last use case from the energy sector illustrates the beneﬁts of
managing ﬁne-grained Internet of Things (IoT) data for advanced analytics. An
overview of the key characteristics of the use case can be found in Table 7.1. More
case studies are presented in Curry et al. (2014).
Fig. 7.2 Paradigm shift from pure data storage systems to integrated analytical databases
134 M. Strohbach et al.
7.6.1 Health Sector: Social Media-Based Medication
Treato is an Israeli company that specializes in mining user-generated content from
blogs and foru ms in order to provide brand intelligence services to pharmaceutical
companies. As Treato is analysing the social web, it falls into the “classical”
category of analysing large amounts of unstructured data, an application area that
often asks for big data storage solutions. Treato’s service as a use case demonstrates
the value of using big data storage technologies. The information is based on a case
study published by Cloudera (2012), the company that provided the Hadoop
distribution Treato has been using.
While building its prototype, Treato discovered “that side effects could be
identiﬁed through social media long before pharmaceutical companies or the
Food & Drug Administration (FDA) issued warnings about them. For example,
when looking at discussions about Singulair, an asthma medication, Treato found
that almost half of UGC discussed mental disorders; the side effect would have
been identiﬁable four years before the ofﬁcial warning came out.” (Cloudera 2012).
Treato initially faced two major chal lenges: First, it needed to develop the
analytical capabilities to analyse patient’s colloquial language and map that into a
medical terminology suitable for delivering insights to its customers. Second, it was
necessary to analyse large amounts of data sources as fast as possible in order to
provide accurate information in real time.
The ﬁrst challenge, developing the analytics, has been addressed initially with a
non-Hadoop system based on a relational database. With that system Treato was
facing the limitation that it could only handle “data collection from dozens of
websites and could only process a couple of million posts per day” (Cloudera
2012). Thus, Treato was looking for a cost-efﬁcient analytics platform that could
fulﬁl the following key requirements:
1. Reliable and scalable storage
2. Reliable and scalable processing infrastructure
3. Search engine capabilities for retrieving post s with high availability
4. Scalable real-time store for retrieving statistics with high availability
Table 7.1 Key characteristics of selected big data storage case studies
Case study Sector Volume
technologies Key requirements
media based medi-
Health >150 TB HBase Cost-efﬁciency, scalability
limitations of relational DBs
Finance Between several
over 150 PB
Building more accurate
models, scale of data, suit-
ability for unstructured data
Smart grid Energy Tens of TB per
Hadoop Data volume, operational
7 Big Data Storage 135
As a result Treato decided on a Hadoop-based system that uses HBase to store
the list of URLs to be fetched. The posts available at these URLs are analysed by
using natural language processing in conjunction with their proprietary ontology. In
addition “each individual post is indexed, statist ics are calculated, and HBase tables
are updated” (Cloudera 2012).
According to the case study report, the Hadoop-based solution stores more than
150 TB of data including 1.1 billion online posts from thousands of websites
including about more than 11,000 medications and more than 13,000 conditions.
Treato is able to process 150–200 million user posts per day.
For Treato, the impact of the Hadoop-based storage and processing infrastruc-
ture is that they obtain a scalabl e, reliable, and cost-effective system that may even
create insight s that would not have been possible wi thout this infrastructure. The
case study claims that with Hadoop, Treato improved execution time at least by a
factor of six. This allowed Treato to respond to a customer request about a new
medication within one day.
7.6.2 Finance Sector: Centralized Data Hub
As mapped out in the description of the sectorial roadmaps (Lobillo et al. 2013), the
ﬁnancial sector is facing challenges with respect to increas ing data volumes and a
variety of new data sources such as social media. Here use cases are describ ed for
the ﬁnancial sector based on a Cloudera solution brief (Cloudera 2013).
Financial products are increasingly digitalized including online banking and
trading. As online and mobil e access simpliﬁes access to ﬁnancial products, there
is an increased level of activity leading to even more data. The potential of big data
in this scenario is to use all available data for building accurate models that can help
the ﬁnancial sector to better manage ﬁnancial risks. According to the solution brief,
companies have access to several petabytes of data. According to Larry Feinsmith,
managing director of JPMorgan Chase, his company is storing over 150 petabytes
online and use Hadoop for fraud detection (Cloudera 2013).
Secondly, new data sources add to both the volume and variety of available data.
In particular, unstructured data from weblogs, social media, blogs, and other news
feeds can help in customer relationship management, risk management, and maybe
even algorithmic trading (Lobillo et al. 2013). Pulling all the data together in a
centralized data hub enables more detailed analytics that can provide a competitive
edge. However traditional systems cannot keep up with the scale, costs, and
cumbersome integration of traditional extract, transform, load (ETL) processes
using ﬁxed data schemes, nor are they able to handle unstructured data. Big data
storage systems however scale extremely well and can process both structured and
136 M. Strohbach et al.
7.6.3 Energy: Device Level Metering
In the energy sector, smart grid and smart meter management is an area that
promises both high economic and environmental beneﬁts. As depicted in Fig. 7.3,
the introduction of renewable energies such as photovoltaic systems deployed on
houses can cause grid instabilities. Currently grid operators have little knowledge
about the last mile to energy consumers. Thus they are not able to appropriately
react to instabilities caused at the very edges of the grid network. By analysing
smart meter data sampled at second intervals, short-term forecasting of energy
demands and managing the demand of devices such as heating and electrical cars
becomes possible, thus stabilizing the grid. If deployed in millions of households
the data volumes can reach petabyte scale, thus greatly beneﬁting from new storage
technologies. Table 7.2 shows the data volume only for the raw data collected for
The Peer Energy Cloud (PE C) project (2014) is a public funded project that has
demonstrated how smart meter data can be analysed and used for trading energy in
the local neighbourhood, thus increasing the overall stability of the power grid.
Moreover, it has successfully shown that by collecting more ﬁne granular data,
i.e. monitoring energy consumption of individual devices in the household, the
accuracy of predicting the energy consumption of households can be signiﬁcantly
improved (Ziekow et al. 2013). As the data volumes increase it becomes
Fig. 7.3 Introduction of renewable energy at consumer sites changes the topology of the energy
grid and requires new measurement points at the leaves of the grid
7 Big Data Storage 137
increasingly difﬁcult to handle the data with legacy relational databases (Strohbach
et al. 2011).
The chapter contains an overview of current big data storage technologies as well as
emerging paradigms and future requirements. The overview speciﬁcally included
technologies and approaches related to privacy and security. Rather than focusing
on detailed descriptions of individual technologies a broad overview was provided,
and technical aspects that have an impact on creating value from large amounts of
data highlighted. The social and economic impact of big data storage technologies
was described, and three selected case studies in three different sectors were
detailed, which illustrate the need for easy to use scalable technologies.
It can be concluded that there is already a huge offering of big data storage
technologies. They have reached a maturity level that is high enough that early
adopters in various sectors already use or plan to use them. Big data storage often
has the advantage of better scalability at a lower price tag and operational com-
plexity. The current state of the art reﬂects that the efﬁcient management of almost
any size of data is not a challenge per se. Thus it has huge potential to transform
business and society in many areas.
It can also be concluded that there is a strong need to increase the maturity of
storage technologies so that they fulﬁl future requireme nts and lead to a wider
adoption, in particular in non-IT-based companies. The required technical improve-
ments include the scalability of graph databases that will enable better handling of
complex relationships, as well as further minimizing query latencies to big datasets,
e.g. by usin g in-memory databases. Another major roadblock is the lack of stan-
dardized interfaces to NoSQL database systems. The lack of standardization
reduces ﬂexibility and slows down adoption. Finally, considerable improvements
for security and privacy are required. Secure storage technologies need to be further
developed to protect the privacy of users.
More details about big data storage technologies can be found in Curry
et al. (2014). This report, in conjunction with the analysis of the public and
10 industrial sectors (Zillner et al. 2014), has been used as a basis to develop the
cross-sectorial roadmap described in this book.
Table 7.2 Calculation of the amount of data sampled by smart meters
Sampling rate 1 Hz
Record size 50 Bytes
Raw data per day and household 4.1 MB
Raw data per day for 10 Mio customers ~39 TB
138 M. Strohbach et al.
Open Access This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-
Noncommercial 2.5 License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/) which permits any
noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s)
and source are credited.
The images or other third party material in this book are included in the work’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if such material is not included in
the work’s Creative Commons license and the respective action is not permitted by statutory
regulation, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to duplicate, adapt, or
reproduce the material.
Acquisti, A., & Gross, R. (2009). Predicting social security numbers from public data. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(27), 10975–10980.
Ahmadi Zeleti, F., Ojo, A., & Curry, E. (2014). Business models for the open data industry:
Characterization and analysis of emerging models. In 15th Annual International Conference on
Digital Government Research (dg.o 2014) (pp. 215–226). ACM.
Apache. (2014). Apache HBase Project Website. http://hbase.apache.org. Accessed Nov 21, 2014.
Aranda, C. B., Corby, O., Das, S., Feigenbaum, L., Gearon, P., Glimm, B., et al. (2013). SPARQL
1.1 overview. In W3C Recommendation.
Baeza-Yates, R. (2013). BIG Interview by John Dominque.
Blaze, M., Bleumer, G., & Strauss, M. (2006). Divertible protocols and atomic proxy cryptogra-
phy. In Proceedings of Eurocrypt (pp. 127–144).
Blueprints. (2014). Blueprints Project Homepage. https://github.com/tinkerpop/blueprints/wiki.
Accessed Feb 4, 2015.
Bollier, D., & Firestone, C. M. (2010). The promise and peril of big data. Washington, DC: Aspen
Institute, Communications and Society Program.
Calder, B., Wang, J., Ogus, A., Nilakantan, N., Skjolvsvold, A., McKelvie, S. et al. (2011).
Windows azure storage: a highly available cloud storage service with strong consistency. In:
Proceedings of the Twenty-Third ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles
(143–157). New York, NY: ACM.
CloudDrive. (2013). Advantages of cloud data storage. http://www.clouddriv e.com.au/download/
www.clouddrive.com.au-WhitePaper.pdf. Accessed Nov 20, 2013.
Cloudera. (2012). Treato Customer Case Study. https://www.cloudera.com/content/dam/cloudera/
Cloudera. (2013). Identifying fraud, managing risk and improving compliance in ﬁnancial
Cloudera. (2014a). Cloudera Company Web page. www.cloudera.com. Accessed May 6, 2015.
Cloudera. (2014b). Rethink data. http://www.cloudera.com/content/cloudera/en/new/. Accessed
Feb 4, 2014.
Curry, E., Ngonga, A., Domingue, J., Freitas, A., Strohbach, M., Becker, T., et al. (2014). D2.2.2.
Final version of the technical white paper. Public deliverable of the EU-Project BIG (318062;
DeBrabant, J., Pavlo, A., Tu, S., Stonebraker, M., & Zdonik, S. (2013). Anti-caching: a new
approach to database management system architecture. In Proceedings of the VLDB Endow-
ment (pp 1942–1953).
Erling, O. (2009). Virtuoso, a Hybrid RDBMS/Graph Column Store. In: Virtuoso
Open-Source Wiki. http://virtuoso.openlinksw.com/dataspace/doc/dav/wiki/Main/
VOSArticleVirtuosoAHybridRDBMSGraphColumnStore. Accessed Feb 6, 2015.
Franz. (2015). Allegrograph product web page. http://franz.com/agraph/allegrograph/. Accessed
Feb 6, 2015.
7 Big Data Storage 139
Gislason, H. (2013). BIG Interview by John Dominque.
Glavic, B. (2014). Big data provenance: Challenges and implications for benchmarking. In
T. Rabl, M. Poess, C. Baru, & H.-A. Jacobsen (Eds.), Specifying big data benchmarks
(pp. 72–80). Berlin: Springer.
Goyal, V., Pandey, O., Sahai, A., & Waters, B. (2006). Attribute-based encryption for ﬁne-grained
access control of encrypted data. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Computer
and Communications Security (pp. 89–98).
Grady, J. (2013). Is enterprise cloud storage a good ﬁt for your business? http://www.1cloudroad.
Harizopoulos, S., Abadi, D. J., Madden, S., & Stonebraker, M. (2008). OLTP through the looking
glass, and what we found there. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGMOD International
Conference on Management data (SIGMOD ’08).
Hasan, O., Habegger, B., Brunie, L., Bennani, N., & Damiani, E. (2013). A discussion of privacy
challenges in user proﬁling with big data techniques: The EEXCESS use case. IEEE Interna-
tional Congress on Big Data (pp. 25–30).
Hortonworks. (2014). Hortonworks Company Web Page. http://hortonworks.com/ . Accessed Feb
Ikeda, R., Park, H., & Widom, J. (2011). Provenance for generalized map and reduce workﬂows.
In Biennial Conference on Innovative. Data Systems Research (pp. 273–283).
iQuartic. (2014). iQuartic pioneers use of Hadoop with Electronic Health Records (EHRs/EMRs).
In: iQuartic Blog. http://www.iquartic.com/blog/. Accessed Feb 7, 2014.
Kamara, S., & Lauter, K. (2010). Cryptographic cloud storage. In Financial Cryptography and
Data Security (pp. 136–149).
Kobielus, J. (2013) Big Data needs data virtualization. In: InfoWorld Webpage. http://www.
infoworld.com/article/2611579/big-data/big-data-needs-data-virtualization .html. Accessed
Nov 18, 2014.
Koomey, J. G. (2008). Worldwide electricity used in data centers. Environmental Research
Letters, 3, 034008. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/3/3/034008.
Lee, C.-C., Chung, P.-S., & Hwang, M.-S. (2013). A survey on attribute-based encryption schemes
of access. International Journal of Network Security, 15, 231–240.
Lee, K., Manning, S., Melton, J., Boyd, D., Grady, N., & Levin, O. (2014). Final SGBD report to
JTC1, ISO/IEC JTC1 SGBD document no. N0095.
Li, M., Yu, S., Zheng, Y., Ren, K., Lou, W., et al. (2013). Scalable and secure sharing of personal
health records in cloud computing using attribute-based encryption. IEEE Transactions on
Parallel and Distributed Systems, 24, 131–143.
Lobillo, F., Puente, M. A., Lippell, H., Zillner, S., Bretschneider, C., Oberkampf, H., et al. (2013).
BIG deliverable D2.4.1 – First draft of sector’s roadmaps.
Manyika, J., Chui, M., Brown, B., Bughin, J., Dobbs, R., Roxburgh, C., et al. (2011). Big data: The
next frontier for innovation, competition, and productivity. Sydney: McKinsey Global
MapR. (2014). MapR Company Website. https://www.mapr.com/. Accessed Feb 6, 2014.
Margaret Rouse. (2014a). Object Storage. http://searchstorage.techtarget.com/deﬁnition/object-
storage. Accessed Nov 20, 2014.
Margaret Rouse. (2014b). Block Storage. http://searchstorage.techtarget.com/deﬁnition/block-stor
age. Accessed Feb 4, 2014.
Marz, N., & Warren, J. (2014). A new paradigm for Big Data. In N. Marz & J. Warren (Eds.), Big
Data: Principles and best practices of scalable real-time data systems. Shelter Island, NY:
Melnik, S., Garcia-Molina, H., & Rahm, E. (2002). Similarity ﬂooding: A versatile graph
matching algorithm and its application to schema matching. In Proceedings of the 18th
International Conference Data Engineering. IEEE Computer Society (pp. 117–128).
Miller, S. P., Neuman, B. C., Schiller, J. I., & Saltzer, J. H. (1987, December 21). Section E.2.1:
Kerberos authentication and authorization system. MIT Project Athena, Cambridge, MA.
Mora, A. C., Chen, Y., Fuchs, A., Lane, A., Lu, R., Manadhata, P. et al. (2012). Top Ten Big Data
Security and Privacy Challenges. Cloud Security Alliance (CSA).
140 M. Strohbach et al.
Neo4j. (2015). Neo4j Company Website. http://neo4j.com/. Accessed Feb 6, 2015.
Okman, L., Gal-Oz, N., Gonen, Y., et al. (2011). Security issues in nosql databases. In 2011 I.E.
10th International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communica-
tions (TrustCom) (pp. 541–547).
OpenStack. (2014). OpenStack Website. http://www.openstack.org. Accessed Feb 3, 2014.
PEC. (2014). Peer Energy Cloud Project Website. http://www.peerenergycloud.de/. Accessed Feb
Russel, J. (2013). Cloudera Impala. O#Reilly Media
Shenker, S., Stoica, I., Zaharia, M., & Xin, R. (2013). Shark: SQL and rich analytics at scale. In
Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data
Sherif, A., Sohan, R., & Hopper, A. (2013). HadoopProv: Towards provenance as a ﬁrst class
citizen in MapReduce. In Proceedings of the 5th USENIX Workshop on the Theory and
Practice of Provenance.
Shucheng, Y., Wang, C., Ren, K., & Lou, W. (2010). Achieving secure, scalable, and ﬁne-grained
data access control in cloud computing. INFOCOM (pp. 1–9).
Shvachko, K. H. K., Radia, S., & Chansler, R. (2010). The Hadoop distributed ﬁle system. In IEEE
26th Symposium on Mass Storage Systems and Technologies (pp. 1–10).
Stonebraker, M. (2012a) What Does “Big Data” Mean? In: BLOG@ACM. http://cacm.acm.org/
blogs/blog-cacm/155468-what-does-big-data-mean/fulltext. Accessed Feb 5, 2015.
Stonebraker, M. (2012b). What Does “Big Data” Mean? (Part 2). In: BLOG@ACM. http://cacm.
acm.org/blogs/blog-cacm/156102-what-does-big-data-mean-part-2/fulltext. Accessed Apr
Strohbach, M., Ziekow, H., Gazis, V., & Akiva, N. (2011). Towards a big data analytics
framework for IoT and smart city applications. In F. Xhafa & P. Papajorgji (Eds.), Modeling
and processing for next generation big data technologies with applications (pp. 257–282).
Thusoo, A., Sarma, J., Jain, N., Shao, Z., Chakka, P., Anthony, S., et al. (2009). Hive – a
warehousing solution over a map-reduce framework. Statistics and Operations Research
Transactions, 2, 1626–1629.
Turner, V., Gantz, J. F., Reinsel, D., & Minton, S. (2014). The digital universe of opportunities:
Rich data and the increasing value of the internet of things. Framingham, MA: International
Data Corporation (IDC). http://idcdocserv.com/1678. Accessed Aug 19, 2015.
Venkatesh, P., & Nirmala, S. (2012). NewSQL – The new way to handle big data. In: Blog. http://
www.opensourceforu.com/2012/01/newsql-handle-big-data/. Accessed Nov 18, 2014.
Vogels, W. (2013). Day 2 Keynote. AWS reInvent.
VoltDB. (2014). VoltDB Company Website. http://www.voltdb.com. Accessed Nov 21, 2014.
Webber, J. (2013). BIG Interview by John Dominque.
White, T. (2012). Hadoop: The Deﬁnitive Guide.O’Reilly.
Wikipedia. (2013). Column-oriented DBMS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Column-oriented_
DBMS. Accessed Apr 25, 2013.
Winder, D. (2012). Securing NoSQL applications: Best practises for big data security. Computer
Wu, C., & Guo, Y. (2013). Enhanced user data privacy with pay-by-data model. In Proceeding of
2013 I.E. International Conference on Big Data (pp. 53–57).
Zaharia, M., Chowdhury, M., Franklin, M. J., Shenker, S., & Stoica, I. (2010). Spark : Cluster
computing with working sets. In HotCloud’10 Proceedings of the 2nd USENIX Conference on
Hot Topics in Cloud Computing (p. 10).
Ziekow, H., Goebel, C., Struker, J., & Jacobsen, H.-A. (2013). The potential of smart home sensors
in forecasting household electricity demand. In Smart Grid Communications
(SmartGridComm), 2013 I.E. International Conferences (pp. 229–234).
Zillner, S., Neururer, S., Munne, R., Prieto, E., Strohbach, M., van Kasteren, T., et al. (2014).
D2.3.2. Final Version of the Sectorial Requisites. Public Deliverable of the EU-Project BIG
7 Big Data Storage 141