Amazon Redshift Reviews

• Easy to build out our snowflake design and load data
• Ability to dynamically increase space requirements
• Good speed
• Extremely reliable

We use Redshift as our primary BI data repository. It provides BI for all four of our product lines, which run on Redshift. It is low cost and highly reliable!

It would be nice if we could turn off an instance. However, it would retain the instance in history, thus allowing us to restart without beginning from scratch.

We have been using this a little over a year.

It is pretty easy to learn and use. If you've worked with SQL before, you won't have any problems. Also, it works very well with Talend, which is our ETL tool.

No issues of stability at this point.

No issues of scalability at this point.

I don't know that we've ever had to contact AWS for Redshift assistance. Everything is straightforward.

Not applicable.

This was our first foray into a data warehouse and customer facing BI.

We went into the project with a design in mind and Redshift provided a great working platform. Our ETL tool helped us out in building the metadata and Birst built out many of the necessary tables.

The primary implementation was done in-house, with assistance from Birst during the Birst installation.

The corporate expectation is to break-even after the first year of selling BI to our customer base. We'll know this by end of Q2, 2018. On the positive side, the addition of BI has helped close multiple sales, so we're beating the competitors with our BI tools (running on Redshift).

BI is sold to our customer base as a part of the initial sales bundle. A customer may elect to opt for a white labeled site for an up-charge.

We pretty much went with Redshift, as the company migrated everything to AWS. We might have looked at other database options, but we did not put much time into it.

Plan out your our DB design in advance and test your theories on running a small instance first. Use a good ETL tool, like Talend, so updates can be scheduled easily. Don't try to write these from scratch. Redshift has been a great DB for us to date. We haven't seen any slowdowns or outages!

Amazon Redshift is very fast. It has really good response times. It's very user-friendly.

Redshift is a multi-tier engine that works like a calculator. There is some missing functionality and sometimes it's so difficult to work in. We need to convert these functionalities using VACUUM inside Amazon Redshift and then it causes some complexity. Sometimes I'd like for them to support some special features or some special installations because we need automatic populations. I would like to see more programming outside of the cloud. I would like to see more functionalities under JSON files. the only functionality that they have now with JSON is reports. I would also like to see other data sources like MongoDB.

I have used Amazon Redshift for three years. I use the latest version because it is on Amazon's public cloud.

The management of the dates for what we can deliver to it, it's always specific to the form that's defined to Amazon Redshift.

I have used their technical support only a few times. Before talking to support I usually try to troubleshoot things myself and I'm usually able to resolve any issues. 

In the past year, we have used Azure, but the committee has chosen Amazon Redshift because it is better than Azure for our company needs. We have grown around Amazon Redshift and other AWS solutions.

Amazon Redshift is not as straightforward as other AWS tools but it is not that difficult.

Amazon Redshift costs less than Oracle Cloud or Microsoft Azure.

I started using Amazon Redshift because I started working for this company that was working with both Azure and Amazon. The company eventually moved all to Amazon. I wasn't sure why they didn't continue to use Azure. My experience was more with Microsoft technology so I prefer Azure. But, there are some interesting features in Amazon Redshift that works better. I have also used Oracle Cloud.

I would recommend Amazon Redshift as it is part of the AWS platform and they are the biggest in the world.

I would give Amazon Redshift a rating of eight on a scale of ten.

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 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 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. 

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.

Scalability: Ability to load huge number of datasets (I have experience with petabytes of data) and process those things. Storage is not limited. We can increase whatever we want.

Performance: The distributed architecture of Redshift has the capacity to process the workflow in a different cluster and coordinate those things in the leader node, making the process much faster.

Flexibility: This feature is helpful for user to increase the node size and config depending on their need. There is no need to wait for hardware to be in place whenever we increase the dataset. Redshift provides the option to increase the node or cluster size whenever required.

Multi-formatted accessibility: The Redshift engine has the capability to read the following file formats: CSV, DELIMITER, FIXEDWIDTH, AVRO, JSON, BZIP2, GZIP, LZOP. The user can choose which is best for their requirements.

VPC configuration: VPC configuration secures our dataset, which we keep inside the Redshift cluster. This VPC config doesn’t allow any third party in or out bound against firewall.

Python UDF calls: This is useful for a user to create their own user-defined function through Python and import that class into Redshift and process the dataset.

We were using MySQL & MongoDB for our regular operations, but when we grew, we were forced to handle a huge number of datasets. It could be petabytes of data in and out on a regular basis. We struggled a lot to complete the operations in a timely manner. With Amazon Redshift, we gained a lot in terms of timing, as well as project completion.

Some of the scoring mechanism really works well in the distributed architecture of Amazon Redshift.

Of course, every product has pluses and minuses. From that perspective, Amazon Redshift has some issues with snapshot restoring when we handle huge datasets. When our snapshot size is really huge, like 20 TB+, we are forced to wait a long time to get it restored. This is reasonable, as they need to transfer the entire dataset to the cluster.

My thought on this issue is that Amazon has their own data centers and they are connecting each region of storage through Direct Connect. The input and output network data transfer might not be a complex thing. For example, if they used 10 Gbps network transfer, they can transfer 1 TB in less than two minutes, but that’s not happening now. To restore 1 TB of data, it takes more than 30-40 minutes.

I have used it for the last 3.5 Years.

I am using Amazon Redshift for big data mapping and data aggregation.

We are using most of their products. Specifically, we are using their dedicated data-centre service (Direct Connect). We are using Amazon products such as Amazon EC2, S3, SQS, EMR, ML, CloudWatch, Redshift, DynamoDB, etc., for more than 10-12 years.

I have encountered stability issues. A few weeks ago, I encountered an issue with hardware failure and database health status failure. When we face these kind of issues, we can't do anything from our side until the Amazon technical team finds the issue and rectifies it. It takes time to get resolved. If we are in a rush to deliver something for a client and encountered these issue, we are really screwed.

Ofcourse. When the amount of data that we handle in the cluster grew, we need to increase the cluster or node size. Apparently, the size of node or cluster increases the hold time for synchronizing the data (meta data) with the node manager. The initial time increases when we start the cluster.

Customer Service good. But couldn't make direct call to customer service many times. I could catch them through their web UI rather making direct call.

Technical support is really great, but it’s paid support. The Basic Support plan doesn't have the option for technical support. It’s only providing billing support.

I have experience working in Hadoop as well. When I compare the two (Redshift & Hadoop), Redshift is more user friendly in terms of configuration and maintenance.

The initial setup of Amazon Redshift is so simple and straightforward. We do not need to read or understand any of the technical documentation. Simply said, it’s a plug-and-play service or platform.

I have implemented through in-house.

In terms of ROI, I can't directly convert to it. Because we are not using only Redshift. We are using multiple product to increase our revenue and decrease time consumption. So It's difficult to calculate ROI of Redshift usage.

Pricing and licensing is so important. In terms of pricing, it's bit high, as they are using standard hardware. My advice to users is: We need to start the cluster when we require it. At the end of the workday, we can just snapshot the clusters and shut them down. And then we restore those snapshots when we need them back. That way, we are charged only for usage rather than spending money on wait time or sleep.

I evaluated Hadoop and Spark, along with Redshift. I have no negative comments about those other products. Redshift is flexible in terms of configuration, maintenance and security, especially VPC configuration, which secures our data a lot.

Use this product for huge data mapping or aggregation. Use Redshift through VPC to keep their data very secure and for a long time.