Amazon Redshift Reviews

We were using the solution for our data backup, but we wanted to optimize it, so we turned to AWS Glue. Amazon Redshift wasn't really great for us and wasn't working out.

Amazon Redshift was used for data storage while moving back from S3 to Amazon. However, it lagged, taking its own sweet time for data backups which also depended on the server location. Because of the aforementioned reasons, we started losing a lot of data that wasn't even real-time data. Ultimately, this affected our analytics at the end of the day. Also, we have been trying to do some work on our AI models, which emit out recommendations based on the live dataset. There were a lot of lagging issues. So, for example, sending out somewhere around 0.1 million or 100,000 emails used to take almost 12-14 working days, and this also includes the process of pulling all the data and sending them to CronJobs. Since we wanted all this work to happen in real-time, we had to get rid of the tool.

I would like Amazon Redshift to improve its performance, analytics, scalability, and stability. Other than these points, I am not aware of any other areas to address since Amazon provides a variety of independent services for their customers to choose from, and if one were to express dissatisfaction with Amazon Redshift, Amazon would likely suggest AWS Glue as an alternative. Similarly, if another issue arose, Amazon might recommend Amazon RDS. There are a lot of things they try to upsell to you, each with its own pros and cons and in different packages offering different perks. So, it all depends on your business needs and what you choose for your business. I wouldn't criticize Amazon for this because they have created packages tailored to their customer's needs, which helps to prevent customers from looking elsewhere.

I have been working with Amazon Redshift as an implementer for three years.

Stability-wise, it has a lot of issues with threats, and that is why we went for a threat shift optimization. In short, I mean to say that it is not stable at all.

If you require a highly scalable solution, I would not recommend Amazon Redshift. We currently have 12 clients using Amazon Redshift, and the scalability of the solution is terrible. In terms of scalability, I would rate this solution a three or four out of ten.

Amazon Redshift has a lot of documentation, but the setup is fine. Three years ago, the solution's deployment process took over a month or a month and a half.

Every solution has a cost and comes in different packages. Considering these factors, AWS Glue is on top. Though Amazon Redshift is good, it depends on what kind of business you're trying to do, what type of analytics you need, and how much data you have.

For Amazon Redshift, we pay around INR 60,000 annually. The cost factor also depends on the number of existing customers. In addition to the standard licensing fee paid for AWS, we incur a cloud storage cost of around a quarter million for the amount of data. We also have to bear additional costs for data security and cybersecurity, which are well taken care of by Amazon, hence the premium pricing. There are several other features and services provided by Amazon that justify the premium pricing.

Amazon Redshift is a horrible solution. I recommend my customer to use AWS Glue since while dealing globally with real-time data, which you need to make decisions, factors like how much cost and data is needed to make a decision should be considered. Apart from this, if customers are paying a huge price for the solution, then probably Amazon shouldn't mind spending on the tool. However, it may not be necessary for small businesses with only a few thousand data points. Although Azure is a better option, some clients prefer AWS, and we had to develop a solution using AWS for our client. Overall, I rate this solution a three or four out of ten.

I use Amazon Redshift for the creation of SQL ETL procedures in a business system. Business people check this in a front-end application, and it helps them plan sales for the next year.

Redshift is being deployed on a Microsoft Azure server.

There are about six people working on this project and using the solution, but there are many similar projects running on Oracle and Redshift.

I like it because the usage is very similar to Microsoft SQL server. The structure of the query and the temporary tables are very similar. Until recently, I thought it was the superior database, but now I think that Redshift is better.

The explain panel in the Redshift database could be better.

I have used this solution for 10 months.

The solution is stable. I haven't had any problems or downfall with the database in the 10 months that I have used the solution.

I have also used Microsoft SQL server and Oracle.

Setup was difficult because I had to set up 25 connections with different users and passwords. The connections have been predefined, but there were still problems when trying to connect for the first time. I had some problems with some certifications that were malfunctioning. This might have had something to do with the functionality of my keyboard because if I pushed a random combination on the keyboard, it would delete the certificate from the folder and the connection wouldn't work. I think this is a problem with the remote desktop rather than with Redshift.

I would rate this solution as eight out of ten. I can't give it a higher score because there are some issues with variable character columns in the table. Otherwise, it's a great database.

Some of my former colleagues from a previous job have joined my organization, and they have had some issues with the SQRs because some things work differently in Redshift, like the partition bar. If someone has issues with Redshift, my advice is to check with support.

We use the solution to build a data warehouse schema for a target database for analytics. We are uploading data from different transactional databases into Amazon Redshift. We use it for reporting purposes. We use the tool mainly for querying and retrieving the data for analytics.

The fast querying of a huge amount of data greatly impacts our data workflows. All the queries work pretty fast.

Amazon Redshift is a really powerful database system for reporting and data warehousing. I like the product. It works really fast with significant volumes of data. The product covers all the main functionalities required for our data security and compliance needs. It has almost everything we need. It is the main data source for our analytics functionality. We can run our models using the data stored in the database. The ease of use is fine. It is pretty easy to integrate the solution with other products and third-party solutions.

The product must provide new indexes that support special data structures or data types like TEXT.

I have no complaints about the product’s stability.

The tool is scalable. About 30 to 50 analysts use the solution in our organization. We need one or two people to administer the solution.

I haven't heard any complaints about the support team from our DevOps engineers.

My project involves analytics and data warehousing. I use Amazon Redshift. I also use AWS Glue as an ETL tool.

I will recommend the product to others for data warehousing and data analytics. However, I do not recommend the solution for small companies that do not have enough volume of data to analyze. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

The solution is used to handle unstructured data.

We have been using the product for some time. We are exploring and learning from the new offering of the product.

AWS provides an ecosystem of different offerings. The product offers good support for the data lake. It also provides a lambda function for automating flows.

The initial deployment was complex.

I have been using the solution for a year and a half.

We have an SLA of 99.99%. The product is available most of the time. The vendor maintains the SLA well. They also have a scheduled maintenance window.

The tool’s scalability is pretty good. I rate the scalability an eight out of ten.

The initial support for moving to a serverless database was very good. AWS provides good support. The technical support is not consistent, though.

We need a solution architect from AWS to help us with deployment.

Initially, we saw a return on investment. Now, the cost is going up according to our use cases. We need to optimize the cost.

The cost must be improved. We’re concerned about the cost. It’s driving a lot of TCO for us. We are looking for alternatives to optimize the cost.

Nutanix also provides similar products. It also offers different options for cloud providers.

It’s a pretty good solution. We plan small and grow big over time. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

We use it for data warehousing. Currently, I'm setting up a data link with Redshift to fetch data from our data lake.

The most valuable feature of Redshift is its cluster.

Redshift's serverless technology needs to improve because not everyone is technically inclined. Organizations want to quickly access and import data into their data warehouse without hassle.

Redshift's ETL tool, Glue, is not seamlessly integrated with Redshift. I've encountered many instances where it couldn't fetch the perfect data type from the source, which should be intuitive. Snowflake's ETL tool, on the other hand, is more intuitive and seamless.

I have been using this solution for two years. I am working with the latest version.

I haven't faced any stability issues because when it works, it runs continuously.

The initial setup is a complex process, especially for someone who is not familiar with nodes and configuring terms like RPUs. You need to consult the documentation to understand what an RPU is.

Moreover, Redshift can be difficult to maintain, especially the Redshift cluster instance.

When it comes to the initial deployment and implementation process of Redshift, there are two types of nodes to choose from: DC2 and RA3, which are for different requirements based on the load. One is for storage, one is for storage and checking, and one is for the computing center.

First, the user needs to know their exact requirement, unlike Snowflake, which automatically scales up and down based on the requirement using the Retrieval Service tool.

The service has not matured yet, and for the Redshift cluster, scaling has to be done manually. The cluster also needs to be set up manually, which is not ideal, especially when Snowflake is already in the market.

It is easy to deploy if you already know how to use Redshift. But if I were a new customer, I might need assistance.

Redshift is a bit less costly than Snowflake, but the effort justifies the cost for Snowflake.

I would suggest starting with a three-cluster that is DC two large, especially if you are setting up a cluster-based search. We offer a three-month or one-month trial, which will allow you to see if you can handle the manual scaling up, scaling down, and maintenance of Redshift. If not, then you can switch to a serverless data solution.

Overall, I would rate it a seven out of ten.

I have used DBeaver to connect to SAP Amazon Redshift and my main use case is for SQL. I map data from a graph database into SQL.

Amazon Redshift has benefited the company by allowing us to scale. 

The solution could improve in handling more data formats and more native support for RDF.

I have been using Amazon Redshift for approximately one and a half years.

The stability of Amazon Redshift is good.

Amazon Redshift is a scalability solution.

I have not used technical support. If I need support I ask my colleagues.

The initial implementation of Amazon Redshift is simple. There was not anything difficult about getting started with the solution.

It's important to have a grasp of the environment you're working in, including a basic understanding of Amazon AWS. Additionally, when selecting an interface to work with, it's essential to choose wisely, as you'll likely be using it for an extended period of time.

I rate Amazon Redshift an eight out of ten.

We use this solution for production and customer data for one of the lines of the business, which is basically one of the warehouses. I oversee the whole architecture infrastructure.

The price isn't bad for the performance for a cloud data warehouse. It's also connected to Databricks but uses SQL. It's comparable to BigQuery. If the analyst knows SQL, which is comfortable and easy to use to go between all of these tool stacks, I think it's reliable. It's a secure and reliable data warehouse.

The performance is good, and it's pretty fast. We also have Looker and MOLE connected to it for visualization, which works seamlessly. We're storing a lot of data. There's a lot of transactional data, clickstream data, and telemetry about the customer, what they're purchasing, call logs, and marketing data.

The analysts are familiar with SQL, and they're able to do this. Even the data scientists who aren't that savvy in Python, because they are very strong in SQL, are able to interact with it very quickly. I'm able to bring in more analysts for support.

There are physically too many pipelines for a company of this size to maintain. For a data scientist, it's very difficult to learn the data in all of these different environments. It's easier to train people in just one environment to start with, like Snowflake or Databricks. It's difficult to have so many technologies that are very comparable, and each comes with a price tag.

I have used this solution for seven months in my current company, but I have also used it in a couple of my previous companies.

The stability is good. For a mid-size company, it's very stable.

It's very scalable.

I would rate the technical support as 10 out of 10.

We had one or two tickets, and they responded extremely quickly. Technical support is good, but that's because we aren't running into many issues. The solution is pretty stable. The individuals who set it up did a very good job.

It wasn't too complex because only a few people were needed to set up the solution.

It's not very pricey compared to other tools. I would rate the price as 5 out of 10.

In my organization, we also use GCP, Amazon EC2, Databricks, and Snowflake. We also have Delta Lakehouse. I'm going to move everything into the Delta Lakehouse. For a company of this size, it's a lot of tools to physically maintain with a small data engineering team.

I think Snowflake has a few more features. In Redshift, you need to write a bit more SQL in some instances, but it's very user-friendly and fast. It can be used as a data warehouse solution as well. It can also do some analytics.

Redshift is comparable to other solutions. I wanted to go with Amazon EC2 because we also have Databricks, and I think I can cover some of those features with the combination of that.

I would rate this solution as eight out of ten. It's a very strong solution.

My advice is to do your research and see if it makes sense for you. You can always request a demo from Redshift.

I use the solution in my company for our data warehouse and databases.

The high price of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required.

I have been using Amazon Redshift for three years.

My company uses IBM Cognos as a reporting portal on top of Amazon Redshift.

My company moved from Netezza to Amazon Redshift since the latter is available on the cloud platform. My company used some migration tools to shift from Netezza to Amazon Redshift, and it took almost a year.

Amazon Redshift was not helpful in improving our organization's functioning, and I believe that previously, we had a better database named Netezza in place.

It is an expensive product.

The tool can handle some large-scale datasets for our company since we use data shares.

I am satisfied with the performance of the product.

The product is able to fulfill my company's needs associated with data analytics.

Amazon Redshift is used as a storage tool.

I rate the tool a seven out of ten.