Amazon Redshift Reviews

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.

I'm the head of Data Warehouse and Business Intelligence, and our company is an Amazon customer. Most of the company's data sources were on Amazon at the time the product was deployed so it was logical to use this database. The data warehouse is quite small, compressed it's maybe 160 GB. It's not like an autonomous data warehouse or Exadata, which was almost 40 terabytes. It's a simple method of achieving extraction and loading. There is no real incremental load on this. Of course in the future, with the company growing, this should be changed and we'll probably need some kind of incremental system instead of this approach.

The product is relatively easy to use because there is no indexing and no partitions. There is no referential integrity only declarative, which is okay.

From my perspective, the product could be improved by making it more flexible. There are now more flexible products on the market that allow for expandability and dynamic expansion as the market changes with regard to data warehouses. Although the product is simple to use there can be problems. If you declare some unique key in a column and then store it, the database is going to believe this is what you have and results will be distorted. It's fine if the query is simple but if it's complex or you have too many queries per hour, it can create a bottleneck for Redshift and then you can't return and recover. It requires some fine-tuning. 

For additional features, I would like to see support for partitions, it doesn't exist yet as a feature. It's quite an important issue when you're dealing with large databases. Also, I believe the product needs improvement in parallel threading to support more database users without jeopardizing performance.

I've been using Redshift for about a year and a half. 

We sometimes have issues with stability, especially over the weekends. It performs, of course, but sometimes there are problems. 

In terms of pricing, if you plan to use the product for a small company and you compare the cost to a product like Oracle Autonomous Data Warehouse, then you need to consider potential company growth and whether you may need to expand the system in the future, require partitions, etc. It could be that in the end, Autonomous Data Warehouse is cheaper than Amazon because if you use that product it can fit your processes and run dynamically. This is not possible on Redshift. If you have two different types of servers on Redshift then at some point you'll reach a limit and will need to move to another type of cluster which is not such an easy operation. On the other hand, with Autonomous Data Warehouse, you can add extra terabytes, but that's it. Nothing else. 

I would rate it a five out of ten. 

Our company uses AWS. So, it was logical to integrate with other services, too. The solution is easy to set up and use.

I do not like the product. It is difficult to work with unstructured data and JSON documents. It would be great if the solution could handle unstructured data more easily. It will be useful if the tool provides support for vector operations.

I have been using the solution for a couple of years.

The pricing is reasonable. The cost might increase if we process a huge amount of data.

The newer version of Postgres can deal with unstructured data more easily. Amazon Redshift is not able to do it yet. Amazon Redshift is difficult to use comparatively.

We use the serverless version. My recommendation depends on the problem an organization is trying to solve. If a company uses AWS products, introducing another vendor is not reasonable. Overall, I rate the product a seven out of ten.

We are using Amazon Redshift services to query the data and to perform certain data science operations on that data, such as applying a machine learning algorithm or doing an analysis.

The most valuable features of Amazon Redshift are that its fast and efficient. We have lots of TBs of data and it's very fast.

Amazon Redshift could improve the user interface support.

I have been using Amazon Redshift for approximately one year.

Amazon Redshift is a stable solution. However, there are many times the environment configuration changes very quickly without any intimidation and it creates a lot of problems for running our codes.

The scalability of Amazon Redshift is good. The solution is best suited for larger-scale businesses because the price is affordable for them and they need the complexity.

The support from Amazon Redshift is very good.

Amazon Redshift is somewhat complex to deploy. The process could improve.

Amazon Redshift is an expensive solution. Larger organizations can afford this solution, but smaller businesses would struggle to afford it.

I rate Amazon Redshift an eight 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.

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. 

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.