Amazon Redshift Reviews

The features I find valuable in Redshift are JSON format support. You can copy JSON to the column and have it analyzed using simple functions. Second, is the parallel off/on where you can choose if you want it to unload to split files or into one file.

Since we have lots of data sources and high volumes, we needed a unified and organized DB that can handle these amounts and will be our single source of truth for the organization. Therefore, Redshift is the best solution.

It lacks a few features which can be very useful, such as stored procedures, Also, one needs to perform Vacuum in order to manage this DB. It would be nice not to worry about that and have this manageable.

Three years.

Yes. Sometimes, for some reason, Redshift is down (not due to maintenance).

No, cause we know how to use Redshift. We have a cluster of both HDD and SSD for which we keep the maximum data in each, so it would be scalable.

Great. They are available and very helpful.

Initial setup is very straightforward, very easy. No need of any side help.

If you want to think of every query you make but want to know that your nodes are fully managed, then use BigQuery Data Analytics. If you want a fixed price, an to not worry about every query, but you need to manage your nodes personally, use Redshift.

I did not. we did consider using BigQuery Data Analytics, but eventually, we decided to use Redshift.

My rating would be 8.5. This a great product, but one still needs to know how to manage clusters and nodes.

In order to make your DB scalable and reliable. it has the greatest benefit of build on PostgreSQL, so any data specialist that has SQL experience can handle Redshift.

• Performance: Very fast query performance due to columnar-storage databases that leverage the Massively Parallel Processing (MPP) capabilities of its data warehouse architecture.
• Petabyte-scale data warehouse, without any loss in performance and low cost: One of our existing customers stores more than 500 terabytes of data in an AWS Redshift database and the warehouse performance was good. We want to highlight that even if the warehouse size increases to petabytes, Redshift would still work fine and there wouldn’t be any performance issues and would cost less also.

The end users were able to have access to real-time analytics.

We would really like to see a few more connectors included that would enable connecting with other databases and services. We have faced some difficulties pulling data from Teradata and storing it in Redshift. There is no direct connector available between Teradata and Redshift.

We are working with this product for the past 24 months.

We have not faced any stability related issue so far.

We did not encounter any scalability issues in the last 24 months that we have been working with Redshift.

We actually had to reach out to technical support a few times and they were really helpful and solved our problems. We would give it 4/5.

We were using an on-premise MySQL data warehouse. To reduce the cost and improve scalability, we switched to a cloud version of data warehouse databases.

Initial setup and configuration was pretty straightforward. First, we needed to create a Redshift cluster. Once the cluster was created, we created a database schema based on our need in the Redshift cluster.

AWS Redshift is one of the fastest and most cost-effective cloud-based databases. They have charged $3330 per TB/year for the ds2.8x large instances which have 244 GB RAM, 36-core CPU, 10Gbps network and 16 TB HDD.

You need to design the database structure with best sort and distribution keys, along with primary and foreign keys.

The most valuable features of this product are:

• Processing huge data in petabytes
• Massively Parallel Processing (MPP)
• Concept of data compression
• The way it stores the data in drives especially with the distribution key
• Supports BI tools like MicroStrategy (MSTR) and Tableau
• Supports all the data warehouse core features such as SCD1 and SCD2, and different schemas like the star schema

It has helped us to understand the response and interest of the customers and the user conversion rate in this competitive world. Thus, it has helped us in the decision-making process.

In most of the scenarios, the data source for Redshift will be traditional RDBMS like MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQL server, etc. After migrating to Redshift, we will find few disconnects for w.r.t data types, the stored procedures and other complex functionalities. There is a need for improvement in these aspects, mainly in the scope of data types and some complex functionalities which we can perform in RDBMS.

I have used this solution for more than a year.

I have not encountered any issues with stability. In terms of performance, Redshift is highly stable.

I have not encountered any issues with scalability. We can easily scale the nodes in AWS only with a few clicks.

I would give the technical support a 6 out of 10 rating.

We have not used any other solution.

The setup was straightforward for those who know AWS.

The Redshift pricing policy is easy to understand.

We did not evaluate other options prior to selecting this solution.

As of now, Redshift is far better than the other products in the market.

Lastly, I would like to mention that Redshift is more about scaling and stabilizing your data. One should also focus on data modeling from time to time.

Our primary use case of this product is as a data warehouse. We are partners with Amazon. 

Amazon Redshift has a very user-friendly SQL editor and it's very easy to use the connectors. The product provides a lot of options to connect to different sources and the modeling capabilities are also good. As a fully managed data warehouse solution, the two important aspects are the connectors and how well we can use SQL for data modeling. In both cases, this is an efficient product.

Improvement could be made in the area of streaming data. The capability can definitely be improved. There are other products like Kinesis which is a separate service we use for streaming data ingestion. Whatever features are missing in Redshift, they have separate sources but if there were the feasibility to ingest real-time streaming data directly into RedShift, that would be very useful. 

I've been using this solution for the past year. 

The product is 100% stable.

The solution is scalable. This is backend technology and end users are not aware they are using it. We probably have four or five users in the company. 

The technical support is good, they're very responsive. 

The initial setup is very simple because it's a fully managed service and not much is required from the user's end.

The licensing is paid on a monthly basis, and I think the pricing is acceptable. They also have a pay-per-go model which is on a per user basis. 

If a company is already using Amazon Cloud or they're looking for a cloud solution, Amazon is one of the oldest and most reliable cloud service providers and Redshift is a no-brainer for data warehouse needs.

I rate this product a nine out of 10. 

We use Amazon Redshift to store customer data. Basically, it's just to store our customer data so that we can use our own data.

I use Redshift Spectrum a lot, so that integration is good. Also, Amazon Redshift offers a relatively flexible structure, especially in terms of like, nodes that you can assign. Moreover, it is serverless, which is great.

Specifically, with Redshift Spectrum, some SQL commands have to run on Redshift instead of Redshift Spectrum, which slows down a few things in the tool. In the solution, user-based access is quite hard. In general, certain permissions are difficult to manage. The solution is expensive compared to Snowflake. I have used Snowflake because they're cheaper than Amazon Redshift. Some of the commands are run on Redshift itself, and some of the commands are completed by Spectrum, which is problematic. However, it is faster when computed by Spectrum.

I have been using Amazon Redshift for six to seven years. Also, I don't remember the version of the solution I am using. I think it's multiple different versions across the platform. So, I think it would be the latest version for some areas of our platform and older versions for other areas. My company has a partnership with Amazon.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten. I can't remember what stability issues we had faced in the past, but I feel that it was due to overloading clusters.

Once we moved to a serverless version, it became more scalable. The concurrency of queries on the same cluster has a big scalability issue. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

Around 300 people in my company use the solution.

The solution's technical support is good since we have a partnership with Amazon and we have individual support. I rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

Previously, we were using Snowflake in our company. We switched since Amazon Redshift was cheaper. Now, I use Snowflake and Amazon Redshift.

I wasn't involved in the solution's initial installation. The deployment model is largely managed by our platform teams. Also, we have a team of engineers who constantly update and maintain the solution. Probably a team of engineers is specifically focused on improving our Amazon infrastructure.

I am not sure about the pricing of the tool since that's not my department. I know that Snowflake is cheaper to set up, manage, and store data. On a scale of one to ten, where one is a low price and ten is a high price, I rate the pricing a seven.

I recommended it for data storage. I don't recommend integrated solutions, like Pacemaker unless you have an advanced team to handle it. I like using it, but it's too expensive. So, I rate the overall solution a seven out of ten.

We primarily use Amazon Redshift for prediction modeling and business reporting.

The most valuable feature is its scalability.

The technical support should be better in terms of their knowledge, and they should be more customer-friendly.

I have been using Amazon Redshift for approximately one year.

This is a stable product.

The scalability is very good, and it is one of the best features of this solution.

We have approximately 10 people who use it, four of which are engineers. At this point, we do not have plans to increase the number of users.

The initial setup is straightforward. I do not recall, however, how long it took to deploy.

In summary, this is a good solution and I recommend it. That said, the customer support needs to be improved.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We are using the latest version of Amazon Redshift, although I cannot state which one. It is actually updated automatically, which prevents us from tracking it.

We use Amazon Redshift as our data warehouse solution. We use it for collecting and analyzing our data. We store our data for analytics in the solution.

The solution has improved the performance of our queries.

We like that the solution is a scalable, column-store database. We are completely talking about an analytic database.

I cannot state which features of the solution are in need of improvement, since those which we make use of have not changed.

The solution has four maintenance windows so, when it comes to stability, I think it would be better to decrease their number.

I rate the solution as an eight out of ten because it is not 100 percent, as there is much service-related maintenance required. It would be nice to see support for the usual LTP features, such as those involving traditional processing.

The solution has four maintenance windows so, when it comes to stability, I think it would be better to decrease their number.

The solution is scalable.

We use the solution extensively, as part of our daily work.

The decision to increase our usage would depend on our business needs.

I cannot comment on technical support, as I have never had contact with them.

Prior to going with Amazon Redshift, I used Azure Data Warehouse and Google BigQuery.

The decision to go with Amazon Redshift was reached by the CTO, so that, in respect of the data warehouse, the entire environment is set up in Amazon.

I feel Amazon to be better than the other solutions we worked with.

The initial setup is easy. Just one or two clicks are needed to set up the solution.

We did not make use of a consultant or integrator.

Not much staff is required to maintain the solution.

I am not aware of the licensing terms.

I am just the user and we make use of the solution.

The solution is deployed solely on the cloud.

I believe there are around 20 people making use of the solution in our environment.

While the solution is not appropriate for every case in which usage must be evaluated, it can be used for sure.

I rate Amazon Redshift as an eight out of ten.

Our data warehouse is Redshift now.

Overall, I'm satisfied with the solution so far, and, from an accounting perspective, it works well for my tasks and duties. 

The product is very stable. 

Changing from local servers to the cloud is very easy. It's so nice not to have to worry about physical servers. 

We need more AWS applications. They have some solutions from Amazon that can manage performance, however, we will need something that can also manage financial reporting, visualization, and analytics - instead of having to go to other solutions like Tableau or Power BI. If they can offer comparable options, we'd like to be able to choose all AWS solutions instead of other platforms. 

The refreshment rate of data reaching Redshift from other sources should be faster.

It could be more efficient during tasks such as data refreshing or uploading. 

I've been using the solution for about a year or so. It hasn't been too long just yet.

The solution is very stable. It's better than OWC, as a technology. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

I cannot speak to how helpful technical support is as this is not my area of expertise here. I'm not directly connected with AWS. That said, it is my understanding that they are doing a pretty good job with our own technical team and they have been helpful.

We used ODBC before to maintain our tables. Oracle ODBC was used as a server, as a data warehouse environment.

Changing to Redshift was a big change for us. However, after a while, we get used to it and it is okay now as it's coming together under a bigger picture of a framework, as a bigger framework. We are going to keep everything in the cloud and moving to AWS and we will put everything there and manage it as a framework going forward.

I'm not using it day in, day out and I did not handle the initial setup. There is a team involved with that side of the product. I'm using it for the closing of the accounting cycle every month. I don't handle implementation tasks. 

I cannot speak to the pricing. I don't handle billing or payments. 

We're customers and end-users.

While I cannot speak to the exact version number, my understanding is that we are using the most up-to-date version of the solution. 

I'd advise those considering the solution to go for AWS products. They are the best. You will have more synergy between your software. It's nice not having multi-software working on the technology itself. If you can, use as many genuine Amazon products as possible and integrate them together. 

Overall, I would rate the product at a seven out of ten.