Teradata Reviews

Teradata is primarily used for data warehousing across all customers. My clients have built-in applications that use Teradata, and their use varies from customer to customer, depending on the industry and database size. The primary function is as an OLAP analytical ecosystem.

Scalability is excellent because of Teradata's parallelism. It doesn't impact operations when nodes are added. This allows customers to expand without migrating the entire database or system.

The most valuable aspects of Teradata are not specific features. Rather, it's the overall performance, particularly parallelism, workload management, and parallel computing. Teradata effectively uses parallelism to the granular level, performing better than other databases.

Teradata is somewhat late in adopting cloud technology. They need to focus on the adoption of cloud to remain competitive and target customers who prefer not to invest in capital expenditures and seek a more flexible, operational expenditure approach.

I have worked with Teradata for around 15 years, from Teradata version six to version 14.

Teradata is highly stable. The workload management and software maturity provide a reliable system, unlike some newer cloud software that can exhibit misbehavior.

Even if an organization starts small, Teradata offers the flexibility to expand by adding nodes or more storage, especially in cloud environments, without incurring downtime or taking systems offline.

The technical support from Teradata is quite advanced. However, like any support service, there can be delays. I rate the support as eight out of ten because of their technical expertise.

During my career, I've been involved primarily with Teradata, and some clients are migrating from Teradata to other technologies.

The initial setup process is rated as eight out of ten. It's straightforward. That said, when migrating databases from other systems, challenges arise in redesigning the code to optimize parallelism.

The implementation is managed by a separate customer service group within Teradata, not by me or my group.

Teradata is high-quality at a premium price. Initially, it may seem expensive compared to similar cloud databases, however, it offers significant value in performance, stability, and overall output once in use.

New users should focus on understanding Teradata's parallelism and write their queries or codes to utilize its full potential. Knowing how to use workload management effectively is beneficial.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Our primary use case for Teradata is as a data warehouse; we store our databases for the data warehouse, including the EDW. It is mainly used for our data warehouse environment where we run a lot of analytics and heavy queries.

The solution provides good performance for our analytics queries. Due to the capacity of the Teradata warehouse, our queries are well performed.

The data mover is valuable over the last two years as it allows us to achieve data replication to our disaster recovery systems. We use the Teradata mover utility, which is presently valuable.

Replication needs improvement because we currently use DataMover once daily. Unlike SQL and Oracle, which have in-built replication capabilities, we don't have similar functionality with Teradata. 

Additionally, when backups are performed, it locks the database, preventing user access, which is a concern. Also, we need extra servers to perform backups, unlike SQL, which has embedded backup capabilities.

I have been working with Teradata for the last four years.

I find the stability to be almost a ten out of ten. It is very stable in our experience.

Scalability is complex as you need to purchase a license and coordinate with Teradata for additional disk space and CPU. They enable a small percentage for scaling, which isn't straightforward.

Customer support is very good, rated eight out of ten under our essential agreement, although it depends on the license agreements.

Positive

We also use SQL and Oracle. Teradata is much more expensive, however, it was already in place at our company.

The setup process is complex. Teradata installed and configured the systems.

We used Teradata's services for installation and configuration.

The pricing is quite high. It's a two out of ten where one is very high priced. Teradata is much more expensive than SQL, which is well-performed and cheaper.

I prefer SQL for its cost-effectiveness and performance and also consider Oracle, although its licensing is more expensive. Teradata was already present when I joined the company.

For Teradata to perform well, it requires good configuration and a good structure of the database. It's most suitable for medium and above-sized companies rather than small ones.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

I use the solution in my company for reporting.

The tool's flexibility and capacity for expansion are areas of concern where improvements are required.

I have been using Teradata for two years. My company is an end user of the product.

It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

In our company, when it comes to Teradata, we have an appliance in place, and we plan to upgrade to another appliance that offers more capacity.

I rate the product's scalability to be below average.

Around 100 people in my company use the tool.

The tool is used daily in my company.

It is difficult to get someone with technical expertise involved with the solution's technical support team. I rate the technical support a four out of ten.

Neutral

I only have experience with Teradata.

I rate the product's initial setup phase as above average on a scale of one to ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises version.

For installation, my company only used the services offered by Teradata.

I rate the product price a nine on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive.

My company has evaluated other options against Teradata, and I see that it has been used in our company for the past four years.

The tool did enhance our company's data warehousing and analytics capabilities.

Teradata was crucial for our company's data analysis, especially for every campaign we run, including the pricing, exercises, and analysis.

Teradata's feature, which had the most significant impact on our company's data management, revolves around the analytics feature it offers.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

Our use cases were related to banks and other financial institutions. 

The tool's most valuable feature is the warehousing model. 

Azure Synapse SQL has evolved from a solely dedicated support tool to a data lake. It can store data from multiple systems, not just traditional database management systems. On the other hand, Teradata has limitations in loading flat files or unstructured data directly into its warehouse. In Azure Synapse SQL, we can implement machine learning using Python scripts. Additionally, Azure Synapse SQL offers advanced analytical capabilities compared to Teradata. Teradata is also expensive. 

I have been using the product for three to four years.

I'm working in a very stable environment with Teradata. We have a lot of flexibility, especially in terms of automation.

I haven't contacted the tool's support yet. 

I have used Azure Synapse SQL. Regarding Teradata, I've only explored it for proof of concept purposes. As a gold partner of Microsoft, we recommend Azure Synapse SQL. However, Teradata seems to be the preferred option when handling large transactions over Azure Synapse SQL. While I haven't explored Teradata extensively, based on colleague feedback, it's considered ideal for financial transactions involving millions to billions of records per day. On the other hand, Azure Synapse SQL is more suited for data warehousing and operational reporting.

The tool's deployment is complex. 

The tool costs about 30,000 euros a month, while Azure Synapse SQL only costs 10,000. 

We used Teradata for proof of concept purposes but eventually transitioned to Azure Synapse SQL for managing large data volumes. With Azure Synapse SQL, we could load nearly 130 million records daily from a single data source, and we had eight data sources. This data-loading process took only four hours to complete. It is also based on the .NET framework. 

If you're familiar with SQL, working with Teradata might be considered complex compared to Microsoft SQL or Oracle.

If you want a tool to handle financial transactions and generate simple dashboards, Teradata might be the faster option. However, if you also require machine learning, operational reporting, etc. I would recommend considering alternatives such as Azure Synapse SQL.

I rate the overall product a seven out of ten. 

The use cases vary based on the projects. In most projects, I worked with ETL tools like Informatica alongside Teradata. However, there was a specific project where we built a real-time data warehouse for active directory data using Teradata.

Oracle was the source system, with potential additional sources feeding into the Oracle database. We used Unix scripting to extract data from Oracle and leverage a colleague's expertise in Unix for the Teradata portion. 

We wrote ETL queries and performed data profiling before loading the data into the target data warehouse for further processing by other tools.

Our task was to create a data warehouse, an active data warehouse in Teradata.

We created and constructed the warehouse. We used multiple loading processes like MultiLoad, FastLoad, and Teradata Pump. But those are loading processes, and Teradata is a powerful tool because if we consider older technologies, its architecture with nodes, virtual processes, and nodes is a unique concept. 

Later, other technologies like Informatica also adopted the concept of nodes from Informatica PowerCenter version 7.x. Previously, it was a client-server architecture, but later, it changed to the nodes concept. Like, we can have the database available 24/7, 365 days. If one node fails, other nodes can take care of it. Informatica adopted all those concepts when it changed its architecture. Even Oracle databases have since adapted their architecture to them. 

However, this particular Teradata company initially started with its own different type of architecture, which major companies later adopted.

It has grown now, but initially, whatever query we sent it would be mapped into a particular component. After that, it goes to the virtual processor and down to the disk, where the actual physical data is loaded. 

So, in between, there's a map, which acts like a data dictionary. It also holds information about each piece of data, where it's loaded, and on which particular virtual processor or node the data resides. Because Teradata comes with a four-node architecture, or however many nodes we choose, the cost is determined by that initially. So, what type of data does each and every node hold? It's a shared-no architecture. 

So, whatever task is given to a virtual processor it will be processed. If there's a failure, then it will be taken care of by another virtual processor.

Moreover, this solution has impacted the query time and data performance. 

In Teradata, there's a lot of joining, partitioning, and indexing of records. There are primary and secondary indexes, hash indexing, and other indexing processes.

To improve query performance, we first analyze the query and tune it. If a join needs a secondary index, which plays a major role in filtering records, we might reconstruct that particular table with the secondary index.

This tuning involves partitioning and indexing. We use these tools and technologies to fine-tune performance.

When it comes to integration, tools like Informatica seamlessly connect with Teradata. We ensure the Teradata database is configured correctly in Informatica, including the proper hostname and properties for the load process. We didn't find any major complexity or issues with integration. But, these technologies are quite old now. 

With newer big data technologies, we've worked with a four-layer architecture, pulling data from Hadoop Lake to Teradata. We configure Teradata with the appropriate hostname and credentials, and use BTEQ queries to load data. 

Previously, we converted the data warehouse to a CLD model as per Teradata's standardized procedures, moving from an ETL to an EMT process. This allowed us to perform gap analysis on missing entities based on the model and retrieve them from the source system again. We found Teradata integration straightforward and compatible with other tools.

Teradata is an expensive tool. Like, if you're already using Microsoft products like Windows, they'll market all their products together. And with the rise of cloud technologies, companies will adopt solutions that offer them some privileges or facilities. 

Similar to how SAP does it in the market, so do Microsoft and other companies.  Even Oracle and other such tools are quite commonly seen compared to Teradata's competitors in everyday solutions.

I have been using this solution for seven years. 

Teradata's technical support is responsive. Although I haven't directly interacted with them, my colleagues at Captivine have. 

They've efficiently resolved queries, adhering to SLAs, often within two to three days, even with time zone differences between India and the US. This quick turnaround is especially crucial for client or production issues that require urgent attention.

We didn't frequently encounter issues with Teradata because the tools are robust and well-documented. Teradata provides comprehensive documentation and resources with the purchase of a license, aiding our day-to-day operations.

There was one exception case, but overall, we managed well with the resources provided by Teradata.

Neutral

Currently, I work closely with the AI and ML team, focusing on frameworks like NumPy.  

At my company, we use Snowflake as a data warehouse. I primarily worked on the ETL side, ensuring data accuracy, governance, modeling, and loading data into the Snowflake warehouse. But it was part of a particular project. 

I've also used Oracle as a source and target, as well as SQL Server. In my experience at Capgemini North America, most clients like Elkhared, Levi's, General Electric, etc., used Teradata as their primary database. 

While the architecture has evolved with new technologies, Teradata remains a powerful tool.

Teradata is an expensive tool.

Teradata, along with Informatica, is expensive. Teradata is still widely used in the Middle East, especially in banks across Dubai and Saudi Arabia, indicating its continued relevance. Compared to open-source solutions and other market offerings, Teradata remains on the higher end of the pricing spectrum.

Like, if you're already using Microsoft products like Windows, they'll market all their products together. And with the rise of cloud technologies, companies will adopt solutions that offer them some privileges or facilities. 

Similar to how SAP does it in the market, so do Microsoft and other companies. Even Oracle and other such tools are quite commonly seen compared to Teradata's competitors in everyday solutions.

Considering its strength in data warehouse technology, I'd rate it between a nine out of ten. For data warehousing specifically, it has a lot of built-in components that can handle various requirements.

However, there's also big data technology to consider these days. But for a traditional data warehouse environment, Teradata is a very successful solution, a very good database, actually.

We use Teradata for our organization's data warehouse, where we store data from all enterprise sources. With Teradata's efficient processing, we generate business intelligence reports and support analytics initiatives. Our teams connect to Teradata for valuable insights, enabling data-driven decision-making across departments. The platform's analytics capabilities enhance our understanding of enterprise data for strategic planning and optimization.

The most valuable feature is parallel processing architecture. Teradata's capabilities enhance data management efficiency, support scalability, and contribute to faster query performance, enabling us to derive valuable insights and analytics.

In our experience with Teradata, we haven't seen any significant weaknesses. However, when it comes to scalability, limited interest and success in some areas make us hesitate about upgrading. In the future, I would like to see Teradata incorporate features that allow it to handle unstructured data. Additionally, improvements in documentation to make it more user-friendly and up-to-date would enhance the overall user experience.

I have been working with Teradata for almost six years.

It is quite stable.

It is fairly scalable. In our company, we currently have around 30 to 40 developers working on advanced data development using Teradata.

I would rate the support as an eight out of ten. They are quick to respond to our questions and have been helpful not just with problem-solving but also during patch deployments on the provider.

Positive

Before Teradata, I primarily worked with databases like Oracle and Db2, mainly in banking. Teradata's advantage lies in its parallel processing, which sets it apart from competitors like Oracle and Db2. The efficiency in handling large-scale data and analytics makes it a preferred choice in my experience.

My advice for those considering Teradata is that if you are looking for an optimized database, it is worth considering. In my experience, it has been better than Oracle and DB2 in handling large-scale data and analytics efficiently. Overall, I would rate Teradata as an eight out of ten.

Teradata Cloud Data Warehouse offers a more cost-effective cloud solution. However, the main challenge we encounter, especially in South Africa, is the limited bandwidth available for connecting to our cloud network. This is where the cost factor becomes significant, making it impractical to fully utilize the cloud due to the bandwidth constraints required for communication with the cloud. This limitation poses a major problem. While we can access certain features of cloud solutions from Teradata for free to evaluate them, it is not feasible for serving a large user base like two to three million people accessing the database. To accommodate such a user load, we would need a massive and robust pipeline connecting to the cloud.

The cloud is ten times better than physical hardware; it is more cost-effective and the upgrade process is ten times easier. Teradata Cloud options are also more affordable for anyone, especially for small companies. However, if our company expands significantly, it may become less affordable due to the costs associated with the necessary connection and bandwidth required to communicate with the servers.

South Africa must significantly improve its internet infrastructure to reduce its high costs. I believe South Africa is one of the most expensive countries in the world when it comes to obtaining high-speed internet connections. We need to establish different service level agreements with clients to ensure we have backup lines and redundancy. The crucial question we need to ask ourselves is, how reliable do we want our internet connection to be? In the case of using cloud services, it's essential to have another line as a backup in case the primary one fails. In our situation, having a backup line is definitely necessary, but it also adds to the expenses. For a major bank like ours, relying on a single connection to the cloud is not feasible; we must have a second line in place to ensure uninterrupted service in case of any issues with the primary line.

The cost of Teradata Cloud Data Warehouse has room for improvement.

I have been using Teradata Cloud Data Warehouse for a few years.

I don't think there is another system in the world as stable as Teradata. They have a redundant hardware setup with double components for everything. If one component fails, another one takes over. This redundancy extends to the data side as well. The system runs on multiple disks, so if one disk fails, the data is still available on another disk, and the replacement process is seamless thanks to hot-swappable components. We don't have to shut down the entire system to replace most parts in the Teradata system. We can simply slide out the faulty component and slide in a new one. Unlike old technologies that required powering down the entire system, Teradata's architecture allows for most operations to remain functional even during maintenance. However, in certain cases, depending on the architecture, we might need to power down the systems.

Teradata Cloud Data Warehouse is highly scalable. I believe that Teradata is more scalable than IBM. Teradata is ten times faster in processing data compared to IBM. When it comes to multi-processing, IBM loses out to Teradata. For example, if we want to store files and we're running five, and we have 20 disks, restoring a certain file will be slower with IBM compared to Teradata. Other solutions may restore that file on one disk and its mirror image, but with Teradata, it functions differently. It stores parts of the file on all the twenty disks, which is why it performs so fast. Teradata's ability to utilize all the disks in the configuration through multi-processing is the reason for its speed.

The technical support at Teradata is the best in the world. All the support engineers have university degrees, and Teradata has its own university where we can access all their courses and components available in the market. This includes other applications as well. All of these resources can be found at Teradata University. About 80 percent of the courses can be completed remotely, but there are certain aspects that require in-person attendance in a classroom setting.

To access Teradata University and its resources, being a client is necessary, and certain subscriptions must be purchased based on our specific needs and inquiries, particularly regarding the Database Administrator side. The information we can access depends on the licenses we acquire with the system.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward, but we may struggle the first couple of times; however, it is very user-friendly. Anybody can download the solution and play with it. Moreover, there is a place where we can ask for help if we encounter problems during the installation of Teradata Cloud. This is one of the reasons why Teradata is very popular, as there are always people available to assist us.

The time required to set up a cloud depends on its size. For a small Teradata Cloud, it usually takes around 45 minutes to complete the setup process.

The most important part is to do our planning and understand the client's requirements before deploying the solution. There is no point in deploying a cloud solution for a client without knowing their specific requirements. Therefore, I believe that the planning phase is the most crucial aspect. Once we have a clear understanding of what the client wants, we can proceed with setting up Teradata Cloud Data Warehouse for them.

The implementation is done in-house by our solution architects.

Teradata used to be expensive, but they have been lowering their prices. The cost is becoming more comparable to other models, like IBM. I would rate the price a seven out of ten, with ten being the highest.

I rate Teradata Cloud Data Warehouse ten out of ten.

Teradata Cloud Data Warehouse is plug-and-play, much like Microsoft. It is a user-friendly and efficient product, and users will be pleased with its speed. 

We used its capabilities for critical tasks, particularly in the realm of recovery jobs. We capitalized on the database's ability to transfer entire blocks of data rather than just transactional information. This approach, especially when dealing with block-level data, proved significantly faster compared to other techniques such as UBC WAN.

It is a highly robust software solution.

The primary challenge with Teradata lies in its cost structure, encompassing subscription fees, software licenses, and hardware expenses. The management of these pricing components can be notably high. I believe there's room for improvement and investment in Teradata's ETL engine, making it more competitive with tools like IBM DataStage. Considering the growing importance of big data ecosystems, it could benefit from enhanced compatibility with platforms like Cloudera and tools like Apache Spark. It's essential to bridge the gaps and make Teradata's tools more accessible and user-friendly in the evolving landscape of data virtualization and analytics.

I have been using it for three years.

I would rate its stability capabilities nine out of ten.

I would rate its scalability abilities eight out of ten.

The tech support has been commendable. They adhere to the SLAs and respond promptly to our issues. We haven't experienced any significant delays on their part. I would rate it nine out of ten.

Positive

I've collaborated with a multitude of vendors, including Dell for EMC storage, Oracle, Nautilus, and Ericsson for the solution team and platform methodologies. I'm currently deeply involved in projects centered around Big Data and the emerging Cloudera ecosystem. The primary factor driving the adoption of Cloudera and similar big data environments is the cost efficiency they offer, coupled with their ability to seamlessly integrate with multiple data sources.

The initial setup was straightforward.

The deployment process doesn't require an extended timeframe, it can be accomplished in just three days. Additionally, you may allocate an extra two days for preliminary preparations, such as gathering data from the current data house. Approximately 20% of the data house considerations have been factored into the planning. I've encountered certain challenges during the database server upgrades, notably transitioning from version 15.7 to 16.2. Despite being a recurrent process, the notable differences were primarily observed in the extraction engine, particularly in the increased number of workflows. Interestingly, these disparities were more evident in the extraction processes rather than within the database itself.

The cost is substantial, totaling around $1.2 million, solely dedicated to upgrading the hardware. This amount doesn't even cover the software upgrade for the database itself, which comes at an additional cost ranging from two to three thousand dollars. Specifically, for the hardware upgrade, we're dealing with a significant investment, around $1.5 million, involving approximately sixty servers with a combined storage capacity of around twenty-two terabytes. These expenses constitute a substantial financial commitment, especially when factoring in standard costs.

I actively endorse the use of Teradata, particularly for data warehouse solutions, due to its robust handling of raw data and overall stability. The emphasis on retaining raw data is its key strength. However, it's crucial to acknowledge the cost associated with it. To address this, consider forming teams to strategize and mitigate expenses, ensuring a more cost-effective implementation that aligns with your organization's objectives. Overall, I would rate it nine out of ten.