If I have to scale maintenance, maintenance is much easier in Amazon Redshift, provided you have data governance in place and constantly monitor the usage and things of that nature. The roles and the RBAC are not so convenient because everything goes to IAM. Whereas Snowflake has flexibility in setting up RBAC, which is entirely different than what Amazon Redshift has to offer.

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

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.

We did not make use of a consultant or integrator.

Not much staff is required to maintain the solution.

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

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.

We integrated it ourselves. 

We handle the implementation and deployment of Redshift for our clients.

I have implemented through in-house.