Snowflake Reviews

It is used in my company as well as in my client's company. We are a system integrator, so naturally, we need to have the centers of excellence and competencies in Snowflake.

The way it is built and designed is valuable. The way the shared model is built and the way it exploits the power of the cloud is very good. Certain features related to administration and management, akin to Oracle Flashback and all that, are very important for modern-day administration and management.

It is also good in terms of managing and improving performance, indexing, and partitioning. It is sort of completely automated. Everything is essentially under the hood, and the engine takes care of it all. As a data warehouse on the cloud, Snowflake stands strong on its ground even though each of the cloud providers has its own data warehouse, such as Redshift for AWS or Synapse for Azure.

There are three things that came to my notice. I am not very sure whether they have already done it. The first one is very specific to the virtual data warehouse. Snowflake might want to offer industry-specific models for the data warehouse. Snowflake is a very strong product with credit. For a typical retail industry, such as the pharma industry, if it can get into the functional space as well, it will be a big shot in their arm.

The second thing is related to the migration from other data warehouses to Snowflake. They can make the migration a little bit more seamless and easy. It should be compatible, well-structured, and well-governed. Many enterprises have huge impetus and urgency to move to Snowflake from their existing data warehouse, so, naturally, this is an area that is critical.

The third thing is related to the capability of dealing with relational and dimensional structures. It is not that friendly with relational structures. Snowflake is more friendly with the dimensional structure or the data masks, which is characteristic of a Kimball model. It is very difficult to be savvy and friendly with both structures because these structures are different and address different kinds of needs. One is manipulation-heavy, and the other one is read-heavy or analysis-heavy. One is for heavy or frequent changes and amendments, and the other one is for frequent reads. One is flat, and the other one is distributed. There are fundamental differences between these two structures. If I were to consider Snowflake as a silver bullet, it should be equally savvy on both ends, which I don't think is the case. Maybe the product has grown and scaled up from where it was.

I have been using this solution for close to three years. I kept a tab on Snowflake and its progress since it came into the market.

Personally, I have worked extensively with Oracle, SQL Server, and Teradata. SQL Server has the Fast Track Data Warehouse (FTDW) appliance. Oracle has both the database and the appliance. I haven't worked on Parallel Data Warehouse, which is a big one offered by Oracle. Teradata is an appliance in itself. There is also Metadata. I haven't worked on DB2. 

All of these had their own lacunae. Data warehouses had their own problems. There were failures, challenges, and difficulties in adoption, and all of these have been addressed by Snowflake a big way. It has tried to marry the best of both worlds in terms of turnaround time, scalability, adoption, and seamlessness.

I hail from a classical data warehouse background. Snowflake has been kind of a silver bullet. It is trying to meet the best of both worlds. I wish I could do much more on Snowflake, but I'm tied up with many other things, which is why I'm not able to concentrate that much, but it is an exceptionally good technology.

Its initial setup is very simple, which is its plus point. It is not at all a problem. You only need to understand a bit of the cloud ecosystem. When Snowflake is on Azure or AWS, you need to understand

• What exactly is happening?
• How these two are handshaking with each other?
• What part Snowflake is playing?
• How Azure or AWS is complementing it?

If these things are clear, the rest shouldn't be a problem.

This could be something that might be debated upon, but Snowflake has two parts to it. One is the data warehouse itself, and the other one is the cloud. It is important to know about the cloud in terms of:

• How a cloud functions?
• How a cloud orchestrates through its services, domains, invocation of services, and other things?
• How a cloud is laid out?

For example, let's take AWS. If AWS is invoking Lambda or something else, how will S3 come into the picture? Is there a role of DynamoDB? If you're using DynamoDB, how would you use it in the Snowflake landscape? So, cloud nuances are involved when we speak of Snowflake, and there is no doubt about that, but a more important area on which Snowflake consultants need to focus on is the core data warehousing and BI principles. This is where I feel the genesis of Snowflake has happened. It is the data warehouse on the cloud, and it addresses the challenges that on-prem databases had in the past, such as scalability, turnaround times, reusability, adoption, and cost, but the genesis, principles, and tenets of data warehousing are still sacrosanct and hold good. Therefore, you need the knowledge or background of what a data warehouse is expected to be, be it any school of thought such as Inmon school, a Kimball school, or a mix. You should know:

• Data warehouse as a discipline.
• The reason why it was born.
• The expectations out of it in the past.
• The current expectations.
• What being on the cloud would solve?

These things on the data warehouse side need to be crystal clear. The cloud part is important, but it is of lesser essence than the data warehouse part. That's what I see, personally, and I guess that's the way the Snowflake founders have built the product.

As a data warehouse, I would rate Snowflake an eight out of ten.

We're running a POC to test scalability, performance, on-demand resource management, workload management, et cetera. The security aspect will also be important for us.

The product offers a lot of great features.

Architectural-wise, it's got great architecture. That's what we are looking for. It's kind of decoupled from storage and has virtual warehouses. We like that we can travel and keep things virtual. For us, the virtual warehousing is likely the most valuable aspect. You can spin up as many virtual warehouses that you want. That's quite useful as a feature.

I haven't found that the solution is lacking any features. It's quite complete.

I would like to see a client version of the GUI. Right now, it is a web GUI, which has stored the SQL, the worksheets. We are asking for that from Snowflake. We'd like to understand how can we save these worksheets on our local desktop. That is not there at this point.

I've been using the solution for about the past year as part of a POC.

In the past, we've used an SQL server. On the cloud side of it, we do have some experience. Snowflake, however, is the new data warehouse solution that we are looking into it.

If necessary, we may have to get into Synapse, and do a kind of a pilot project with that as well. We may evaluate them both to see which is better. We are not there yet. We are just working on Snowflake.

We are a direct customer and end-user.

We've been using the solution during a POC for the last year or so. It's a pilot project to test its feasibility for our company. We're just starting to get performance stats and stuff like that.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we are currently using. I don't recall the exact version number. Usually, people are running the latest version. Whatever the latest available option is is likely the number we are on.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We're still in the POC phase, however, based on what we have seen, we are quite satisfied.

We implement this solution for our customers. It is a cloud data warehouse. It is SaaS, and it can be run on Azure, AWS, or something else. We are using its latest version.

It is a very good platform. It can handle structured and semi-structured data, and it can be used for your data warehouse or data lake. It can load and deal with any data that you have. It can extract data from an on-premises database or a website and make it available in the cloud.

It has very fast implementation and integration as compared to other solutions. There is no need for the DBA to manage or do the day-to-day DBA tasks, which is one of the greatest things about it.

In future releases, it can also support full unstructured data.

We have been using this solution for a year.

It is stable.

It has very good scalability. Your data can grow in the platform. We have at least 50 users of this solution in an organization.

Their vendor is wonderful. I only have good words for them.

It is not too complex. Its implementation is easy even for those people who don't know Snowflake and are coming from other environments, such as Oracle or SQL Server.

It can be implemented very quickly. Our customers in Israel implemented it very quickly. It was much faster to implement than other platforms.

It is on a monthly basis. It is based on your usage. There are no additional costs from the point of the licensing fee.

We do give some kind of evaluation to the customers about how much it is going to be. You can decide in Snowflake the virtual machine that you are using for customers. There are several kinds of virtual machines that you can use. It is similar to the clothing sizes: small to extra large. If you need more power in the coming month, you can decide in advance and take a more powerful machine. You can just select it from the platform. You can also decide which machine you want to take for extracting data.

I would advise others to check themselves how fast its implementation can be and how responsive it is. I would also recommend evaluating it before choosing other solutions, such as Microsoft Synapse or Amazon Redshift. You can test it yourself by using a test case. You can try to load the data on each platform, which can take a few weeks, but you will get to know the advantages of this solution. It is very different from other solutions.

I would rate Snowflake a nine out of ten.

I have used it in my previous company. It was just a SQL server data warehouse using reporting tools on top of it. It was an on-premise SQL server environment, and it was a typical data warehouse use case, but we wanted to do things faster and more cost-effectively. 

We used it to modernize our data warehouse. We didn't want to invest more in on-premise servers, and we were looking for a way to quickly get more data joined together. 

It had definitely improved the way our organization functioned at the time.

The overall ecosystem was easy to manage. Given that we weren't a very highly technical group, it was preferable to other things we looked at because it could do all of the cloud tunings. It can tune your data warehouse to an appropriate size for controlled billing, resume and sleep functions, and all such things. It was much more simple than doing native Azure or AWS development. 

It was stable, and their support was also perfect. It was also very easy to deploy. It was one of those rare times where they did exactly what they said they could do.

Their strategy is just to leverage what you've got and put Snowflake in the middle. It does work well with other tools. You have to buy a separate reporting tool and a separate data loading tool, whereas, in some platforms, these tools are baked in. In the long-term, they'll need to add more direct partnerships to the ecosystem so that it's not like adding on tools around Snowflake to make it work. They can also consider including Snowflake native reporting tools versus partnering with other reporting tools. It would kind of change where they sit in the market.

I have been using this solution for about three years.

We didn't run into anything. We had outages for a couple of seconds, but they were related to Amazon or AWS. They weren't related to Snowflake.

We scaled it a little bit. We didn't have a lot of data to scale, as a lot of companies do. We only had a couple of terabytes of data, which is insignificant for a cloud platform. 

The development team had three or four people getting data in. Then report people were also using the platform, but they didn't really have to know that it was Snowflake because they were going at it through a reporting tool. There were probably 30 or 40 people writing queries against our reporting tools, which were, in turn, using Snowflake.

They were really good. They were very responsive. There were never any issues with them. I would give them a ten out of ten.

I've used a lot of different data warehousing solutions at different companies.

It was easy as pie. In a couple of hours, it was up and running, and we were loading the data in. We had a fairly senior developer for that. He knew SQL server and queries very well. If you're used to developing in any type of SQL environment, you can jump in and use Snowflake really quickly.

It is per credit. It has a use-it-as-you-go model. We bought a chunk of 20,000 credits, and they were lasting us for at least a year. We didn't have the scale of data like a much larger company to consume more credits. For us, it was very inexpensive.

Their strategy is just to leverage what you've got and put Snowflake in the middle. It doesn't make it expensive because most of the organizations already have reporting tools. Now, if you were starting from scratch, it might be cheaper to go a different way.

If time to value is your primary goal, then I would recommend going for Snowflake over one of the other cloud providers.

I would rate Snowflake a ten out of ten. It is one of the few products in which everything demos well. It actually did everything they showed in the demos. We really couldn't find any gotchas in it. It kind of delivered as promised.

We primarily use the solution for the data warehouse.

The solution offers everything you'd find on Azure or AWS. It has a lot of industry-standard features and capabilities.

The product has excellent autoscaling. We can actually compute and scale-out at the same time without having to depend on other tools. You can do it on the fly, or within queries, etc.

The Visual Copy Cloning is definitely one feature that everyone looks forward to due to the fact that it gives you regular backups. 

The solution offers a very good time travel function that allows you to travel back in time to before your systems we corrupted. You can go back into your history and grab the last backup before corruption so that you regain almost everything you need. It gives you 90 days to fetch the data back if you need to. It's better than Azure options.

We've spoken with Snowflake about the fact that there are a few bare minimum requirements now these days for any data cloud, data lake, or platform. They've lacked a bit here, however, they're adopting some new measures that will be available in the next release, so that is sorted.

Snowflake is partners with only AWS as a cloud platform. However, in India, Microsoft has got a big subscription. The product needs to be able to adapt to Azure a bit more in order to meet the local market demands. 

It's difficult to know how to size everything correctly.

They should incorporate at least a basic ETL framework.

It's early days, however, I would put the solution at a seven out of ten. It needs a bit more time to mature. If I were to look at it strictly from a warehousing perspective, I'd rate it at an eight out of ten.

I've been using the solution for about ten months. I started using it originally when we started our partnership with the organization.

The one thing that seems to be unclear for Snowflake customers is the cluster sizing. No one seems ot know how to compute that.

For example, if I'm running a warehouse that is extra small, as per my query performance, if I see like if this query will run perfectly on the machine I will have. However, I don't know which machine to go for. There's no direct comparison between an extra small, or a small, or a medium warehouse. I never get to know, unless I run the case query on different sizes, which to go for. It's hard to say "Buy only this and go for that particular size". Sizing seems to be a bit of trial and error. If they had some sort of benchmarking around their cluster size, that would be helpful.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. We didn't have any issues with implementation. It's not too complex.

The pricing of the solution is fine. The storage is pretty cheap. They also offer a lot of discounts. The cost shouldn't really be a problem. 

That said, the agreement should be more of a subscription basis instead of asking for a commitment. For example, Microsoft tells your the price and allows you to subscribe to that, whereas, Snowflake wants you to commit to a certain amount of time before they really give you firm pricing. 

We're partners with Snowflake. We've been partners for just under a year at this point.

I'd definitely recommend the product. It's worked quite well for us. 

A new customer needs to understand, however, that they need a roadmap of at least five years when they are deciding on their data warehouse. They should compare costs and sizing to make sure they are getting the solution that makes sense for their current and future needs. 

The solution integrates well with other applications, and if you need it to integrate with existing applications, you still should check to make sure it's possible.

I wouldn't necessarily recommend Azure over Snowflake, as they aren't really a good comparison. Snowflake is more focused on data repositories and data warehouses. AWS does give you many options, however.

Snowflake is used for very large data, such as in the case where tables might contain 600 to 700 million records.

It's ultra-fast at handling queries, which is what we find very convenient.

The pricing and licensing model is good.

Snowflake has support for stored procedures, but it is not that powerful. They have a lot of limitations. For example, it is really basic and there are limitations on subqueries.

The functions are not very good. Improving this would help to make sure data manipulation much easier. Right now, the inbuilt stored procedures and functions are all Java-based.

I Have been using SnowFlake for about five months.

We have approximately 10 people in the organization who are using Snowflake.

The technical support is very good.

We use Snowflake in conjunction with Matillion, which is another AWS-based ETL tool. It is being used as a bridge between our on-premises data and Snowflake. 

The initial setup is very straightforward. You simply log in and start using it.

When it comes to deployment, you can choose between the AWS and Azure cloud. We chose AWS.

It is easy to create an instance and you can do it yourself if you have an AWS account. Snowflake will give you the connection ID and other relevant details.

The pricing is flexible in that, for example, if I run a query and it is slow then I can increase the processing power while it is still running, and they charge more for the time. The cost is on a per-query basis.

If you're running with a base processor, called a warehouse, the query might cost 1.0 cents. But, if my query is slow and I want to increase the speed, the next level adds a little more cost to that.

On average, with the number of queries that we run, we pay approximately $200 USD per month.

Recently, we have been doing a review of Redshift. However, we finally decided to go with Snowflake.

My advice for anybody who is considering Snowflake is that it is a really good product, especially if you are having issues with Big Data. It is not good for a typical OLTP environment, such as a small table.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We work with multiple customers who were asking for this and other similar solutions. We've since had several team members certified in Snowflake and we have a certified team working with that solution and keeping up to date with developments. I'm the general manager of the company and we are implementers. 

Snowflake has its own features in comparison to other similar solutions like Exadata. This gives it huge competitive power. It has a very good interface tool with its own benefits and features which are really useful for our needs from a computation and storage perspective. I think this solution provides the best potential of any data warehousing product where they choose to use Snowflake instead of Oracle or DBII. The product can be leveraged with respect to better performance, auto tuning, competition and performance. From an architectural perspective, the solution has all the ingredients it requires. 

We've come to realize that for many customers, pricing of this solution is an issue. Maintaining Snowflake clusters is challenging and cost intensive. Reporting could also be improved. Any data that moves out of Snowflake is being cached. If I have 400 to 500 end users, with 100 or 200 reports on a daily basis, all the reports will be cached. It's a matter of ensuring that costs can be optimized. The combination of Red Warescape plus Snowflake is a combination from the design and development perspective. But the combination from the reporting perspective to micro strategy on top of Snowflake could be a better feature, so there's a combination that has to be considered.

I've been using this solution for about 10 months. 

Our customers tell us that it is a stable solution. 

We're working in 32 countries with enterprise size customers. We're still waiting to see what happens with that level of scalability and how the solution performs. If this product can be further fine-tuned or optimized in such a way that it becomes a very good fit for the Azure platform, that would be great. 

They provide very good documentation on implementation design and development perspectives. 

I think the initial setup is straightforward. Anyone who has worked on these types of solutions will pick it up quickly.

It really depends on the nature of the implementation. If it's a small or medium sized company, we focus more on the pricing. If that can be brought down, I think Snowflake has a high potential that it can meet and can create a big name for itself in the big data cloud implementation platform. It has all the features. It already has all the complementary features to deal with the challenges. Those are built in and taken care of. It could be on Google cloud, or it could be on Azure or it could be on Amazon.

I'll rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

We primarily use the solution in order to have the daily transactions of trades. It's to manipulate and find out the benchmark of every broker and institutional manager.

The solution's most valuable aspect is the ability to process the bulk amount of data and try to clone the database. We try to clone the production database. Instead of syncing the whole database, we can just clone it up and start working on it. Basically, the cloning and the database are very user-friendly.

The solution is very stable.

Right now, Snowflake doesn't have any analytical functions, especially in comparison to Oracle and other databases. The analytical performance needs to improve. It would be ideal if Snowflake was able to use the analytical functions, and what we have in the relational database. That would be really helpful. 

They don't have any SLAs in place. It would be better if they did.

I've been working with the solution for two years now. The company, however, has been using it for three years at this point.

The solution is quite stable. It's reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze. There aren't bugs or glitches.

The solution is definitely scalable. We're able to add nodes to grow it out when we need to. If an organization needs to expand the solution, they can do so easily. We find it to be very reliable.

There are about 300 people using the solution at this time. We don't plan on increasing usage at this time.

Technical support is very, very good. It's a responsive and knowledgable team. We're quite satisfied with the level of service we receive.

That said, Snowflake technical support doesn't have any SLAs. If they had a small amount of SLAs, then it would be helpful for us to clear or solve any production issues, etc. that we may run into.

We need about 50-60 people to maintain the solution.

Snowflake's pricing is a bit higher than other competitors.

We were looking at Amazon Redshift previously. However, we decided that Snowflake was more reliable and scalable.

We're a customer. We don't have a business relationship with the solution.

Users considering adding the solution should understand that Snowflake can be used only for transactional processing, not for analytical processing. If they want to go for transaction processing, they can go for Snowflake and if they want to go for analytical processing, they should look at or go for an Oracle database.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.