Amazon Redshift Reviews

We use Microsoft Azure, but one of our clients is on AWS, so we did a POC for Amazon Redshift. Now, it's up to them to make the call on whether to continue with the solution based on pricing and their needs.

Redshift's versioning and data security are the two most critical features. When migrating into the cloud, it's vital to secure the data. The encryption and security are there. 

Redshift's GUI could be more user-friendly. It's easier to perform queries and all that stuff in Azure Synapse Analytics.

I have been working on Amazon Redshift for six months, but I haven't used the solution extensively because we only did a POC for one client.

I think Redshift is stable. There shouldn't be any issues. 

Redshift is serverless, so you can scale it as needed. If the amount of data increases, the nodes will automatically be connected.

We haven't contacted Amazon support yet because we didn't encounter any issues that required support from Amazon, but I imagine it's comparable to the service we get from Microsoft. 

I've worked with a couple of cloud-based database solutions like Amazon Redshift and Azure Synapses,

Setting up Redshift is a little complex and requires some prior knowledge, whereas Azure's GUI is more intuitive and it's easier to navigate the steps.

We use this solution for our enterprise data warehouse.

We use it for scaling our warehouse.

We also use it for analytics.

A feature I find most valuable in Amazon Redshift is that it's fast.

I also like that you can query the data lake using the Redshift spectrum.

You can build analytics on this solution, similar to QuickSight or Tableau, based on the Redshift Data API.

Amazon Redshift also has good integration and a good API. It's not hard to manage. It even has machine learning features.

This solution could be cheaper, but Amazon could constantly add new instances and decrease the size from previous ones, so it could be an AWS work model.

It would also be better if it can be integrated with non-AWS sources, e.g. additional open source connectors.

We've been using Amazon Redshift for a long time. We've been using it for years.

This solution is stable.

I find this solution scalable to a great extent.

Amazon's technical support works fine.

Setup was easy. This is a managed service, so you don't need to install anything. You just choose the size of the cluster and within 10 to 20 minutes, it's built.

This solution implements the pay-as-you-use model, so no license. It's just for underlying infrastructure.

I evaluated Cloudera and Azure.

We usually rely on some distribution, not like classic Hadoop. We do not use  open source Hadoop because our customers prefer some distribution to get support. Some paid features from Cloudera and Amazon provide their own support.

We provide expertise for different services of AWS, e.g. most of them because we are a premium partner and we have program competencies. We develop data, big data, machine learning, and migration, so we cover a large field.

We have some clients with Azure, but most of our clients are with AWS.

The deployment of Amazon Redshift is through AWS. It's a home-based, proprietary solution. It's fully managed by AWS.

Amazon Redshift has implemented most of the features that we currently need, so I can't name additional features that I expect from them in the next release.

The number of people needed for the deployment and maintenance of this solution in our organization is just one: only to set up. It's just one DevOps.

I would recommend Amazon Redshift as a solution for others who are thinking about using it.

I'm rating Amazon Redshift an eight 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.

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. 

Redshift is a managed service for data warehouses.

I find the most valuable features to be the MPP style of processing, which mostly all of the data warehouses provide. The ability to integrate all other AWS services, such as NSS and S3, with little effort is very helpful. The service is well maintained, there are update patches frequently.

We recently moved from the DC2 cluster to the RA3 cluster, which is a different node type and we are finding some issues with the RA3 cluster regarding connection and processing. There is room for improvement in this area. We are in talks with AWS regarding the connection issues.

In an upcoming release, I would like to have a Snowflake-like feature where we can create another cluster in the same data warehouse, with the same data. You can create a different cluster and compute nodes for each of your use cases, for retail, and for your data analyst all while keeping your underlying data safe.

Additionally, the cluster resize process takes down the cluster for too long, approximately 15 minutes. There are limitations to the size, you can resize only by a multiplier of two, for example, if you have four nodes then you can either go to eight nodes or you can come down to two nodes. There should be fewer limitations.

I have been using Amazon Redshift for approximately one year.

There are three people in my organization using this soltuon.

Their technical support is good. They provide assistance when we need it but since we were experiencing a connection issue it was taking longer to get a resolution. We had to involve a vendor to get it resolved for us.

I have previously used ClickHouse.

The installation was easy.

The price of the solution is reasonable. According to the RA3 cluster particularly, it provides 128 GB of storage with only four nodes. If you can manage your computations processes with the help of materialized views and proper queries. I think the IP clusters are very useful and overall fair for the price.

We have been evaluating Snowflake and are in the POC phase. If it passes our quality tests then we will be moving to it soon.

I rate Amazon Redshift a seven out of ten.

We are a solution provider and Amazon Redshift is one of the products that we implement for our clients. We are working with a few customers that have it implemented right now.

The feature that we find most useful is the ability to do analytics on the fly. It's the most important because it gives us the ability to provide solutions to multiple customers.

We have had some challenges with respect to considering some of the high-end availability architecture for production. We don't find many issues now, but initially, we had some challenges.

This is an older product, so when it comes to usability, it requires a technical person to work with it. It requires a specialist and a good business case to work on it. It has to be a little more user-friendly than what it is today.

In our experiments, the handling of unstructured data was not very smooth.

We have been using Redshift for the last year and a half.

It is fairly stable and works reasonably well.

We tested the scalability to 10 or 15 terabytes and we didn't have an issue with it. I'm not sure what the limit is.

The technical support is very good and they have helped us to move forward with this product. We also had a lot of good support from the community, as well.

It is not complex for a specialist because it is fairly well documented and systematic.

The specialists required by this product are what you will find in most enterprises. However, in a smaller organization, you might have to engage multiple parties with separate expertise to set it up correctly. For example, you will require somebody with experience in database migration to the cloud.

At the moment, pricing is a little bit on the higher side, although it depends on the size of the company. If it's a fairly large enterprise that has a defined budget then they may not have too much of an issue with the pricing.

We have also tried Cosmos DB and Azure for our customers, but they were not chosen after the PoC. Azure and AWS have different database offerings and we experimented with both, but the customer ended up in production and we stayed with that.

My advice for anybody who is implementing Redshift is to ensure that the requirements include having technical people on board to continuously work on getting the results you want. Because it's not that user-friendly, there is a need for a technical resource in the company.

Also, I would suggest watching out for scalability beyond what we have tested. If there is a need for scaling then it should be tested, although it depends on the use case.

If Redshift had a proper interface then I would score it higher.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We stored all of the data in the S3 bucket and would like to have it stored in a data warehouse, which is why we chose this database. 

It would be very easy for us as an end-user, who would like to access the data, rather than draw it post-transformation and store it at a database level.

The TP transactions for the creation of the tables does very well.

It is quite simple to use and there are no issues with creating the tables.

The managing updates, deletes, and role-level change performance is very low. For example, while you are doing inserts, updates, deletes, and amalgamates, the performance is very, very poor.

If you want to query the database after you have a lot of terabytes of data, the load, performance-wise, is very low.

Looking at the performance of the query, querying the database, and especially with the amalgamates when it is getting updated, it is really poor.

We like this solution and have tried all of the native services; they were working quite well. The only concern about Redshift was managing the cluster, especially the EMR cluster. Our company policy was not to use EMR clusters, especially with the nodes failing. There were many instances of downtime happening. Essentially, there was too much data traffic.

The other drawback was the CDC, as we do not have any tools that can support it.

Creating the structure is easy on the DDL side, but after you create the table and you want to transform the data to store it in a database, the performance is poor.

It takes a lot of time to ingest and update the data. After you ingest the data and someone wants to fetch it in the table, it takes a lot of time performance-wise to return the results.

We have been using this solution for three months.

We are using the latest version.

There are issues with stability and it should be compared with Snowflake.

This solution is scalable. We scale up and scale down manually when we are required to, we do not have an automatic setup.

We have three or four people using this solution.

We have contacted technical support to give our opinion and recommendations or feedback and they agreed that it needs improvement.

Previously, we tried the Snowflake database, which works really well. The expectations were really good with the performance, also the DDL, DML operations on the processing of the data.

The initial setup is simple and we did not find it very complex at all.

The time it takes to deploy depends on how many tables you want to create, or how many tables will you merge the data with.

We are switching to Azure, although not because of the product or the services that we did not like. It's about AWS being competitors for logistic companies that we are working with. Also for security reasons, we do not know how secure the data is on the cloud.

If you are competitors then you don't know if the data can be accessed by your competitor, and the team can be looking at a demographic, which could impact your sales.

We have only just started using Redshift, but we are not really satisfied with it.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

My primary use for Amazon Redshift is for analytical purposes.

In terms of valuable features, I like the columnar storage that Redshift provides. The storage is one of the key features that we're looking for. Also, the data updates and the latency between the data-refreshes are valuable.

Pricing is one of the concerns that I have because if you compare Snowflake with Redshift, it provides some of the same services, but at a much cheaper rate. So pricing is one of the things that it could improve. It should be more competitive.

Otherwise, everything else looks good, especially the data storage and analytical processes.

I just started using Amazon Redshift. I'm still learning about the product and about how the pricing and the dynamic skilling are done.

I understand that Amazon Redshift is quite stable and it has features like higher readability. So I think it should be a good product to be used.

I have not been in touch with support but I will be needing their support in the near future to help me set up the environment.

In terms of the initial setup, as I said I've still not started using it, so I pray that it's going to be pretty easy for me to set it up.

Of course I would advise others to choose Amazon Redshift, as long as pricing is not a concern for them.

On a scale of 1 - 10, where 1 is the worst and 10 is the best, I'd give it an 8.