Amazon Redshift Reviews

We are premium partners with Amazon. 

This service can merge and integrate well with all databases. 

Planting is the primary key enforcement that should be improved but there is probably a reason that they don't follow the reference architecture. It means they are creating clones of the data shading. Cost control measures could be improved along with added transparency.

I've been using this solution for nine months. 

AWS technical support is very good. 

We needed some help from experienced professionals for our initial setup. 

Licensing costs are reasonable. 

I would recommend this solution depending on the scale. You need to decide whether you want to be lined up with a single cloud provider or go over the service and have it deployed on multi cloud. There are many factors to take into consideration. 

I rate this solution seven out of 10. 

We are a service provider and we currently have five clients with active IT implementations that use Amazon Redshift. We also use it ourselves.

My clients primarily use this product for data analytics. They are mostly working with big data and using the machine learning functionality.

I like the cost-benefit ratio, meaning that it is as easy to use as it is powerful and well-performing. There are only three parameters that you need to understand, which are the distribution key, the sort key, and the compression method or encoding method. Once you understand these, you can tune the performance.

I would like a better way to ingest data in realtime because there is a bit too much latency.

There are too many limitations with respect to concurrency. It is now possible to auto-scale it, although that is still slow.

It could offer smaller nodes with decoupling of storage and processing because for the moment, the only nodes available to work that way are huge, and for large companies.

My first implementation of Redshift was three and a half years ago, in 2017.

We have not had many issues with stability.

Scalability can be a problem if you don't write your database queries correctly. For example, if you write a cartesian product in Redshift then you may end up consuming all of the resources. However, it does have features like workload management to prevent this from happening.

Our clients are mid-sized to very large companies.

I have been in touch with Amazon technical support and they are very good. They are efficient and resolve problems quickly. They know what they're doing and they're very professional.

I have also used Snowflake and its methods for ingesting real-time data are faster. It also offers a bit more functionality and a bit more flexibility. It's a bit easier to maintain and faster to scale, but more expensive as well.

To me, the big drawback with Snowflake is that the data is not stored in your AWS or Azure subscription, or AWS account. They store the data in their own account that they manage for you, which might be a problem for some companies in terms of compliance and legal requirements.

Azure Synapse and Google BigQuery are also competing solutions.

The deployment is very straightforward and it usually takes a couple of minutes. This is one of the reasons I like it.

As long as a person understands the AWS landscape, they can deploy it on their own. Otherwise, without realizing it, they might for example deploy a Redshift cluster that is not properly secure. Similarly, it could cost a lot of money if they don't know what they're doing. You don't need a very in-depth technical expertise, but you do need to understand how AWS works.

I have a team that provides maintenance for our customers. It is spread between France and Belgium and I have 25 people who report to me, with another 20 who I work with indirectly.

The cost of Redshift ranges from a few hundred dollars a month to thousands of dollars a month, according to the resources that you're going to use, the number of nodes, and the type of nodes.

My customers have implementations that cost about $500 a month for a very small one. I also have a customer with a monthly invoice of about $25,000 USD.

With the most recent update, we should now be able to decouple storage from processes.

My advice for anybody who is implementing Redshift is to make sure that they are using it for what it is made to do. It's an analytical database, so it's not meant to process transactional data. It's the perfect tool if you use it for the right purpose.

Overall, it is a very stable and robust product. That said, there is still plenty of potential for improvement.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We are a digital transformation services company, and we are using Amazon Redshift for one of our clients. They are a logistics company that has transportation and other needs.

Their first requirement is for financial reporting, where we pull financial data from their many ERP systems and can provide a corporate-level view.

There is also an operations standpoint, where they are looking for operational insights. For this, we again pull different information from their ERPs, bring it into Redshift, and then model it in such a way that they will be able to see a consolidated view in terms of operational success across lines of business.

I've been working with data warehouses for a long time and it has always been the case that we had to invest quite a bit on infrastructure, upfront. We are used to dealing with Teradata, and the cost of setting up the data center and getting the appropriate licenses was a big deal. Now, we are able to spin up some clusters and then start using it, allowing us to incrementally pay as we expand.

This has become a big shift in how we spend because there is no capital cost upfront. Moreover, this works with startups as well as with enterprise, and they provide an equal footing. This means that even the advanced capabilities and insights that are available with a data warehouse are no longer limited to the larger clients. Even a startup can use these features, immediately.

The most valuable feature is the scalability, as it grows according to our needs.

The part that I like best is that you only pay for what you are using.

The OLAP slide and dice features need to be improved. For example, if a business wants to bring in a general ledger from an ERP, they want to slice and dice the data. What we have found is that they have a lot of formulas that are used to calculate metrics, so what we do is use SQL Server Analysis Services. The question then becomes one of adopting a single vendor and transitioning to Azure. If Redshift had similar capabilities then it would be very good.

We have been using Amazon Redshift for about five years.

The stability is awesome. We have been using it for quite a while and haven't faced any issues.

The scalability is very good. You can start at a very low scale and just keep expanding as required. It is the type of product that fits organizations of all sizes.

We have contacted support on several occasions. With our most recent customer, they are pretty large and we were directly in touch with the regional account manager, who is the head of database analytics for India. This person was directly involved in our calls and helped with the evaluation, so the support has been pretty good.

We have worked with Teradata and more recently, have been working with Azure SQL Warehouse. Teradata is an on-premises solution and the upfront costs are high. Comparing Azure SQL Warehouse and Amazon Redshift, in terms of features I think that they are pretty much on par.

The SQL Data Warehouse does have better OLAP capabilities, and they also offer a level of serverless capability where they have split the compute and the storage. This means that they can operate at a lower cost in the development environment.

Many of our clients have begun to adopt Power BI, and once they start using it, they tend to lean towards Azure and the Azure SQL Data Warehouse. The fact that Power BI is free, makes quite an impact.

The initial setup is straightforward, once you get used to it. There is a lot of documentation available.

We handle the implementation and deployment of Redshift for our clients.

I am interested in seeing a split between compute and storage, which is something that they are currently working on. We plan to start leveraging it at some point in the future.

In summary, I think that Amazon Redshift is a very good data warehouse and we really like it a lot.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Redshift COPY command, because much of my work involved helping customers migrate large amounts of data into Redshift.

It helped my customers migrate off on-premise platforms such as Teradata to Redshift, at a fraction of the cost.

There are challenges with dealing with character set mismatches. Migrating data from other data sources can be challenging when you are working with multibyte character sets.

Two years.

No.

I personally haven’t hit scalability issues but at dinner a year ago with a few of my existing customers (all Fortune 500 companies), I was told there are scalability issues once you get to 32-nodes.

One of my previous customers told me they were migrating off Redshift because they hit the ceiling and had scalability issues. They told me the responsiveness they were getting was inferior to alternative solutions once your Redshift gets to a specific size.

I never utilized AWS technical support.

I’ve helped customers migrate off Teradata, SQL Server , Oracle Exadata, Greenplum, and ParAccel Matrix to Redshift. Some due to cost savings, others because of the EOL of the product.

Setup of Redshift infrastructure is pretty straightforward. I’ve been told that setting up partitions can be tricky in order to ensure good performance.

I have nothing to add here as I wasn’t involved in this part of the process. However, one of my customers went with Google Big Query over Redshift because it was significantly cheaper for their project.

I only provided advice to my customers, but some looked at Azure SQL DW , Greenplum, Netezza, and Google Big Query as possible alternatives

Be careful with vendor lock-in! You cannot move your Redshift environment to a different cloud provider or to an on-premise solution.

• It is based on PostgreSQL.
• It’s managed. Meaning, AWS takes care of handling infrastructure, deployments, encryption, and uptime for you.
• It’s cheap when you consider the price per terrabyte per year.
• It’s integrated into the AWS stack.

At my previous company that does mobile analytics as its core product, we moved all the analytics backend from MongoDB to Redshift. Where I currently work, we use it as our main data lake/data warehouse.

While It's probably the best product of its category (managed SQL-based data warehouse at scale), it has a few shortcomings, although very few.

The main issue people complain about, and I agree with the claim, is that it's hard to load your data into it. You need to first export your data on S3 as CSV, JSON or AVRO. Then you can load it into Redshift. And even then, you have to make sure your data is properly formatted. (you can use the copy options: TRUNCATECOLUMNS to load fields that are too big, and MAXERROR to allow for a given number of errors while loading). In general, ETL and data cleaning is a hurdle in data engineering, and Redshift suffers from it.

I have used Redshift for three years.

I once had an issue because my data contained a Unicode NULL character in a VARCHAR field ("\u0000"). The AWS support has been very quick and helpful to respond. Other than that, I have had no issues whatsoever.

No scalability issues whatsoever.

Technical support is very good.

At my previous company, we switched from MongoDB to Redshift. The main reason was price and performance. At my current company, we started a data warehouse (greenfield project). The choice was between Google BigQuery and AWS Redshift. The main criteria was that Redshift was PostgreSQL-based and supports CTE and Window functions (PostgreSQL features).

The big part when using Redshift is setting up the ETLs and doing the data cleaning. It was very hard when moving from MongoDB, because I had to re-discover our data schema (that had no spec). With that said, in both cases (moving from MongoDB and starting from scratch), I had a prototype up in about a day. By that I mean that I had the most important parts of my data loaded into Redshift and I could query it.

The pricing page is explicit. Choose what suits your needs in terms of storage and performance.

For setting up a data warehouse, BigQuery was a serious contender. BigQuery is simpler to setup and scale. It's also more of a black box: you worry less what's inside and how it scales and you get charged for what you consume (which is both a pro and a con). With Redshift, you choose in advance the type of machine you want, like EC2 (resizing your cluster is easy).

If you evaluate Redshift, chances are that you should evaluate BigQuery too. So take the time to weigh the pro and cons of each (plenty has been written online about that).

Take a look at the reserved instances pricing. It is very advantageous if you know you will stick with Redshift for some time.

Take the time to learn PostgreSQL (eg: https://www.pgexercises.com/). Redshift, while based on PostgreSQL 8.0, supports a good number of advanced Postgres features.

Do not be afraid of joins. PostgreSQL is performs very well in this regard.
If you need performance, have a look at the suggested optimizations in the official documentation (such as setting up the correct distkeys, sortkeys and compression schemes).

Understand that Redshift has no indexes.

Understand that Redshift is an analytical database with columnar storage, and that it does not enforce constraints.

Redshift plays very well with a PostgreSQL instance in RDS linked to it via DBLINK (see this guide: https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/big-data/join-amazon-redshift-and-amazon-rds-postgresql-with-dblink/). I've used this in production at my current company, and this is tremendously useful. You can have your raw data in Redshift and aggregate it directly into RDS. To do this, insert into RDS what you select from Redshift through the dblink.

We use Amazon Redshift as our data warehouse.

I found the Amazon Redshift computing services easy. I found the computing instances the most incredible in the solution.

What would make Amazon Redshift better is improvising on the pricing structure. For example, Acronis provides backups in cybersecurity, yet the pricing is a bit lesser than Amazon Redshift. I was comparing AWS, Amazon Redshift, Azure, GCP, and Acronis, and I found that Acronis has a lesser price than the other solutions in the archiving space.

I have at least two months of familiarity with Amazon Redshift.

Amazon Redshift is a stable solution.

Amazon Redshift is a scalable solution that also suits enterprise companies.

I haven't contacted Amazon Redshift support because I'm not a client, but according to my subordinates, the support is excellent.

Amazon Redshift is very easy to deploy, and deployment-wise, it's impressive. It only takes two to three minutes max to deploy.

Pricing for Amazon Redshift is reasonable, though it could be somewhat higher than other solutions, such as Azure. Still, when you base your comparison on the services offered and the pricing, it's the most reasonable versus its competitors, such as RDS.

My company provides backup solutions.

I'm a business analyst with little expertise in a specific service or solution, but I've gone through all the solutions.

I have experience with Amazon Redshift.

What I'd tell others looking into implementing Amazon Redshift is that it's one of the market's best databases or data warehouses right now.

My rating for Amazon Redshift is nine out of ten.

I'm an Amazon partner.

We use Amazon S3 along with RedShift for storing our data. The data comes from various sources, including our client and third-parties. We get the data as an S3 file and then load it into RedShift using the ETL tools. RedShift will then act as the data source for Tableau, which is used for forecasting and other marketing activities.

The processing of data is very fast.

It would be useful to have an option where all of the data can be queried at once and then have the result shown. As it is now, when we run a query and we are looking at the results, part of the data remains to be processed at the back end. That works very well, but in some cases, we require the whole data to be queried at once and then have the results shown. We have not faced many use cases where it would have been useful, but in one or two, we used other methods to achieve this goal.

When our clients contact customer support, they don't want to speak with a machine. Instead, they want to chat with a real person who can provide a solution. Customer service bots can provide solutions but they cannot understand our problems.

I have been working with Amazon RedShift for about two and a half years.

RedShift is a stable solution.

Given that RedShift is a cloud-based solution, scalability is very good. I have not faced any issues regarding that. We have about 20 users, who are all developers.

Beyond the development stage and in terms of the users who make use of the data for Tableau, there are many people all around the world. I do not know the number, but it could be 1,000 or it could be 10,000. When it leaves us and goes into production, it is the client who takes care of it. One of the clients I am working with now has more than 10,000 personnel.

I do not have enough direct contact with the solution to see issues that would require contacting technical support. I work with the data but not so much on the technical side. It is the developers who would see these issues and would do so. The level of support is based on our subscription plan.

The company was using other solutions such as Google Cloud and the Microsoft Cloud Service, but I have not personally used these solutions.

I am very happy with what RedShift has. So far, anything that I have required has been there and whatever use case I have faced, the functionality is available.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this solution is to look into what certifications are available and which ones are required for different roles. Depending on the job, different certifications are relevant or required. For example, as a business analyst, a coding certification would not be useful for me and it would be a waste of money. These things should all be considered before beginning with any certifications.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We are using the private cloud model of this solution. Our primary use case is for a data warehouse for BI.

The most valuable features are that it's easy to set up and easy to connect the many tools that connect to it.

Compatibility with other products, for example, Microsoft and Google, is a bit difficult because each one of them wants to be isolated with their solutions. That's a big problem now.

It is stable.

Scalability is okay. It's easily scalable. We don't have any plans to increase usage at the moment. We currently have two users directly using this solution. Indirectly we have around 50 users.

We require two staff members for maintenance and others are just consuming data from it.

There hasn't been a need to contact technical support at this point. We haven't had any technical issues. 

The initial setup was straightforward. The deployment took a few hours. 

We integrated it ourselves. 

We have seen ROI. It's been useful.

It's around $200 US dollars. There are some data transfer costs but it's minimal, around $20.

I would rate it a ten out of ten.