We just raised a $30M Series A: Read our story

Amazon Redshift OverviewUNIXBusinessApplication

Amazon Redshift is the #4 ranked solution in our list of top Cloud Data Warehouse tools. It is most often compared to Snowflake: Amazon Redshift vs Snowflake

What is Amazon Redshift?

Amazon Redshift is a fast and powerful, fully managed, petabyte-scale data warehouse service in the cloud. Customers can start small for just $0.25 per hour with no commitments or upfront costs and scale to a petabyte or more for $1,000 per terabyte per year, less than a tenth of most other data warehousing solutions.

Traditional data warehouses require significant time and resource to administer, especially for large datasets. In addition, the financial cost associated with building, maintaining, and growing self-managed, on-premise data warehouses is very high. Amazon Redshift not only significantly lowers the cost of a data warehouse, but also makes it easy to analyze large amounts of data very quickly.

Amazon Redshift gives you fast querying capabilities over structured data using familiar SQL-based clients and business intelligence (BI) tools using standard ODBC and JDBC connections. Queries are distributed and parallelized across multiple physical resources. You can easily scale an Amazon Redshift data warehouse up or down with a few clicks in the AWS Management Console or with a single API call. Amazon Redshift automatically patches and backs up your data warehouse, storing the backups for a user-defined retention period. Amazon Redshift uses replication and continuous backups to enhance availability and improve data durability and can automatically recover from component and node failures. In addition, Amazon Redshift supports Amazon Virtual Private Cloud (Amazon VPC), SSL, AES-256 encryption and Hardware Security Modules (HSMs) to protect your data in transit and at rest.

As with all Amazon Web Services, there are no up-front investments required, and you pay only for the resources you use. Amazon Redshift lets you pay as you go. You can even try Amazon Redshift for free.

Amazon Redshift Buyer's Guide

Download the Amazon Redshift Buyer's Guide including reviews and more. Updated: October 2021

Amazon Redshift Customers

Liberty Mutual Insurance, 4Cite Marketing, BrandVerity, DNA Plc, Sirocco Systems, Gainsight, Blue 449

Amazon Redshift Video

Pricing Advice

What users are saying about Amazon Redshift pricing:
  • "The part that I like best is that you only pay for what you are using."
  • "My customers have implementations that cost about $500 a month for a very small one. I also have a customer with a monthly invoice of about $25,000 USD."
  • "At the moment, pricing is a little bit on the higher side, although it depends on the size of the company."
  • "The price of the solution is reasonable. According to the RA3 cluster particularly, it provides 128 GB of storage with only four nodes. If you can manage your computations processes with the help of materialized views and proper queries. I think the IP clusters are very useful and overall fair for the price."

Amazon Redshift Reviews

Filter by:
Filter Reviews
Industry
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Company Size
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Job Level
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Rating
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Considered
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Order by:
Loading...
  • Date
  • Highest Rating
  • Lowest Rating
  • Review Length
Search:
Showingreviews based on the current filters. Reset all filters
Sarfraz Nawaz
Chief Executive Officer at Ampcome
Real User
Top 20
Scales according to our needs, which saves a lot in terms of upfront costs

Pros and Cons

  • "The most valuable feature is the scalability, as it grows according to our needs."
  • "The OLAP slide and dice features need to be improved."

What is our primary use case?

We are a digital transformation services company, and we are using Amazon Redshift for one of our clients. They are a logistics company that has transportation and other needs.

Their first requirement is for financial reporting, where we pull financial data from their many ERP systems and can provide a corporate-level view.

There is also an operations standpoint, where they are looking for operational insights. For this, we again pull different information from their ERPs, bring it into Redshift, and then model it in such a way that they will be able to see a consolidated view in terms of operational success across lines of business.

How has it helped my organization?

I've been working with data warehouses for a long time and it has always been the case that we had to invest quite a bit on infrastructure, upfront. We are used to dealing with Teradata, and the cost of setting up the data center and getting the appropriate licenses was a big deal. Now, we are able to spin up some clusters and then start using it, allowing us to incrementally pay as we expand.

This has become a big shift in how we spend because there is no capital cost upfront. Moreover, this works with startups as well as with enterprise, and they provide an equal footing. This means that even the advanced capabilities and insights that are available with a data warehouse are no longer limited to the larger clients. Even a startup can use these features, immediately.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature is the scalability, as it grows according to our needs.

The part that I like best is that you only pay for what you are using.

What needs improvement?

The OLAP slide and dice features need to be improved. For example, if a business wants to bring in a general ledger from an ERP, they want to slice and dice the data. What we have found is that they have a lot of formulas that are used to calculate metrics, so what we do is use SQL Server Analysis Services. The question then becomes one of adopting a single vendor and transitioning to Azure. If Redshift had similar capabilities then it would be very good.

For how long have I used the solution?

We have been using Amazon Redshift for about five years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability is awesome. We have been using it for quite a while and haven't faced any issues.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The scalability is very good. You can start at a very low scale and just keep expanding as required. It is the type of product that fits organizations of all sizes.

How are customer service and technical support?

We have contacted support on several occasions. With our most recent customer, they are pretty large and we were directly in touch with the regional account manager, who is the head of database analytics for India. This person was directly involved in our calls and helped with the evaluation, so the support has been pretty good.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We have worked with Teradata and more recently, have been working with Azure SQL Warehouse. Teradata is an on-premises solution and the upfront costs are high. Comparing Azure SQL Warehouse and Amazon Redshift, in terms of features I think that they are pretty much on par.

The SQL Data Warehouse does have better OLAP capabilities, and they also offer a level of serverless capability where they have split the compute and the storage. This means that they can operate at a lower cost in the development environment.

Many of our clients have begun to adopt Power BI, and once they start using it, they tend to lean towards Azure and the Azure SQL Data Warehouse. The fact that Power BI is free, makes quite an impact.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is straightforward, once you get used to it. There is a lot of documentation available.

What about the implementation team?

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

What other advice do I have?

I am interested in seeing a split between compute and storage, which is something that they are currently working on. We plan to start leveraging it at some point in the future.

In summary, I think that Amazon Redshift is a very good data warehouse and we really like it a lot.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Public Cloud

If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?

Amazon Web Services (AWS)
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Thomas Dallemagne
Cloud & Data - practice leader at Micropole Belgium
Real User
Top 20
Quick to deploy, easy to use, and performs well, but ingesting data in realtime should be improved

Pros and Cons

  • "I like the cost-benefit ratio, meaning that it is as easy to use as it is powerful and well-performing."
  • "There are too many limitations with respect to concurrency."

What is our primary use case?

We are a service provider and we currently have five clients with active IT implementations that use Amazon Redshift. We also use it ourselves.

My clients primarily use this product for data analytics. They are mostly working with big data and using the machine learning functionality.

What is most valuable?

I like the cost-benefit ratio, meaning that it is as easy to use as it is powerful and well-performing. There are only three parameters that you need to understand, which are the distribution key, the sort key, and the compression method or encoding method. Once you understand these, you can tune the performance.

What needs improvement?

I would like a better way to ingest data in realtime because there is a bit too much latency.

There are too many limitations with respect to concurrency. It is now possible to auto-scale it, although that is still slow.

It could offer smaller nodes with decoupling of storage and processing because for the moment, the only nodes available to work that way are huge, and for large companies.

For how long have I used the solution?

My first implementation of Redshift was three and a half years ago, in 2017.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

We have not had many issues with stability.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Scalability can be a problem if you don't write your database queries correctly. For example, if you write a cartesian product in Redshift then you may end up consuming all of the resources. However, it does have features like workload management to prevent this from happening.

Our clients are mid-sized to very large companies.

How are customer service and technical support?

I have been in touch with Amazon technical support and they are very good. They are efficient and resolve problems quickly. They know what they're doing and they're very professional.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

I have also used Snowflake and its methods for ingesting real-time data are faster. It also offers a bit more functionality and a bit more flexibility. It's a bit easier to maintain and faster to scale, but more expensive as well.

To me, the big drawback with Snowflake is that the data is not stored in your AWS or Azure subscription, or AWS account. They store the data in their own account that they manage for you, which might be a problem for some companies in terms of compliance and legal requirements.

Azure Synapse and Google BigQuery are also competing solutions.

How was the initial setup?

The deployment is very straightforward and it usually takes a couple of minutes. This is one of the reasons I like it.

As long as a person understands the AWS landscape, they can deploy it on their own. Otherwise, without realizing it, they might for example deploy a Redshift cluster that is not properly secure. Similarly, it could cost a lot of money if they don't know what they're doing. You don't need a very in-depth technical expertise, but you do need to understand how AWS works.

What about the implementation team?

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.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The cost of Redshift ranges from a few hundred dollars a month to thousands of dollars a month, according to the resources that you're going to use, the number of nodes, and the type of nodes.

My customers have implementations that cost about $500 a month for a very small one. I also have a customer with a monthly invoice of about $25,000 USD.

What other advice do I have?

With the most recent update, we should now be able to decouple storage from processes.

My advice for anybody who is implementing Redshift is to make sure that they are using it for what it is made to do. It's an analytical database, so it's not meant to process transactional data. It's the perfect tool if you use it for the right purpose.

Overall, it is a very stable and robust product. That said, there is still plenty of potential for improvement.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Public Cloud

If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?

Amazon Web Services (AWS)
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
Learn what your peers think about Amazon Redshift. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: October 2021.
543,089 professionals have used our research since 2012.
MS
Service Manager & Solution Architect at a logistics company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Easy to use and simple to setup, but the performance is low, and there is no tool to support the CDC

Pros and Cons

  • "It is quite simple to use and there are no issues with creating the tables."
  • "It takes a lot of time to ingest and update the data."

What is our primary use case?

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.

What is most valuable?

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.

What needs improvement?

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.

For how long have I used the solution?

We have been using this solution for three months.

We are using the latest version.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

There are issues with stability and it should be compared with Snowflake.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

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.

How are customer service and technical support?

We have contacted technical support to give our opinion and recommendations or feedback and they agreed that it needs improvement.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

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.

How was the initial setup?

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.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

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.

What other advice do I have?

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.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Private Cloud

If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?

Amazon Web Services (AWS)
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
AndrewAlangaram
Business Analyst at a tech services company with 201-500 employees
Real User
Top 20
Good performance and integrates well with our Tableau solution

Pros and Cons

  • "The processing of data is very fast."
  • "It would be useful to have an option where all of the data can be queried at once and then have the result shown."

What is our primary use case?

We use Amazon S3 along with RedShift for storing our data. The data comes from various sources, including our client and third-parties. We get the data as an S3 file and then load it into RedShift using the ETL tools. RedShift will then act as the data source for Tableau, which is used for forecasting and other marketing activities.

What is most valuable?

The processing of data is very fast.

What needs improvement?

It would be useful to have an option where all of the data can be queried at once and then have the result shown. As it is now, when we run a query and we are looking at the results, part of the data remains to be processed at the back end. That works very well, but in some cases, we require the whole data to be queried at once and then have the results shown. We have not faced many use cases where it would have been useful, but in one or two, we used other methods to achieve this goal.

When our clients contact customer support, they don't want to speak with a machine. Instead, they want to chat with a real person who can provide a solution. Customer service bots can provide solutions but they cannot understand our problems.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been working with Amazon RedShift for about two and a half years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

RedShift is a stable solution.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Given that RedShift is a cloud-based solution, scalability is very good. I have not faced any issues regarding that. We have about 20 users, who are all developers.

Beyond the development stage and in terms of the users who make use of the data for Tableau, there are many people all around the world. I do not know the number, but it could be 1,000 or it could be 10,000. When it leaves us and goes into production, it is the client who takes care of it. One of the clients I am working with now has more than 10,000 personnel.

How are customer service and technical support?

I do not have enough direct contact with the solution to see issues that would require contacting technical support. I work with the data but not so much on the technical side. It is the developers who would see these issues and would do so. The level of support is based on our subscription plan.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

The company was using other solutions such as Google Cloud and the Microsoft Cloud Service, but I have not personally used these solutions.

What other advice do I have?

I am very happy with what RedShift has. So far, anything that I have required has been there and whatever use case I have faced, the functionality is available.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this solution is to look into what certifications are available and which ones are required for different roles. Depending on the job, different certifications are relevant or required. For example, as a business analyst, a coding certification would not be useful for me and it would be a waste of money. These things should all be considered before beginning with any certifications.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Private Cloud

If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?

Amazon Web Services (AWS)
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Reseller
MadhavanSrinivasan
CEO at Screenit Labs Pvt Ltd
Real User
Top 5
Good support and provides on-the-fly analytics capabilities, but it needs to be more user-friendly

Pros and Cons

  • "The feature that we find most useful is the ability to do analytics on the fly."
  • "In our experiments, the handling of unstructured data was not very smooth."

What is our primary use case?

We are a solution provider and Amazon Redshift is one of the products that we implement for our clients. We are working with a few customers that have it implemented right now.

What is most valuable?

The feature that we find most useful is the ability to do analytics on the fly. It's the most important because it gives us the ability to provide solutions to multiple customers.

What needs improvement?

We have had some challenges with respect to considering some of the high-end availability architecture for production. We don't find many issues now, but initially, we had some challenges.

This is an older product, so when it comes to usability, it requires a technical person to work with it. It requires a specialist and a good business case to work on it. It has to be a little more user-friendly than what it is today.

In our experiments, the handling of unstructured data was not very smooth.

For how long have I used the solution?

We have been using Redshift for the last year and a half.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It is fairly stable and works reasonably well.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We tested the scalability to 10 or 15 terabytes and we didn't have an issue with it. I'm not sure what the limit is.

How are customer service and technical support?

The technical support is very good and they have helped us to move forward with this product. We also had a lot of good support from the community, as well.

How was the initial setup?

It is not complex for a specialist because it is fairly well documented and systematic.

The specialists required by this product are what you will find in most enterprises. However, in a smaller organization, you might have to engage multiple parties with separate expertise to set it up correctly. For example, you will require somebody with experience in database migration to the cloud.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

At the moment, pricing is a little bit on the higher side, although it depends on the size of the company. If it's a fairly large enterprise that has a defined budget then they may not have too much of an issue with the pricing.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We have also tried Cosmos DB and Azure for our customers, but they were not chosen after the PoC. Azure and AWS have different database offerings and we experimented with both, but the customer ended up in production and we stayed with that.

What other advice do I have?

My advice for anybody who is implementing Redshift is to ensure that the requirements include having technical people on board to continuously work on getting the results you want. Because it's not that user-friendly, there is a need for a technical resource in the company.

Also, I would suggest watching out for scalability beyond what we have tested. If there is a need for scaling then it should be tested, although it depends on the use case.

If Redshift had a proper interface then I would score it higher.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: partner
AA
Financial Performance Manager at a retailer with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Stable and easy to migrate to the could but data uploading could be faster

Pros and Cons

  • "Changing from local servers to the cloud is very easy. It's so nice not to have to worry about physical servers."
  • "The refreshment rate of data reaching Redshift from other sources should be faster."

What is our primary use case?

Our data warehouse is Redshift now.

What is most valuable?

Overall, I'm satisfied with the solution so far, and, from an accounting perspective, it works well for my tasks and duties. 

The product is very stable. 

Changing from local servers to the cloud is very easy. It's so nice not to have to worry about physical servers. 

What needs improvement?

We need more AWS applications. They have some solutions from Amazon that can manage performance, however, we will need something that can also manage financial reporting, visualization, and analytics - instead of having to go to other solutions like Tableau or Power BI. If they can offer comparable options, we'd like to be able to choose all AWS solutions instead of other platforms. 

The refreshment rate of data reaching Redshift from other sources should be faster.

It could be more efficient during tasks such as data refreshing or uploading. 

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using the solution for about a year or so. It hasn't been too long just yet.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The solution is very stable. It's better than OWC, as a technology. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

How are customer service and technical support?

I cannot speak to how helpful technical support is as this is not my area of expertise here. I'm not directly connected with AWS. That said, it is my understanding that they are doing a pretty good job with our own technical team and they have been helpful.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We used ODBC before to maintain our tables. Oracle ODBC was used as a server, as a data warehouse environment.

Changing to Redshift was a big change for us. However, after a while, we get used to it and it is okay now as it's coming together under a bigger picture of a framework, as a bigger framework. We are going to keep everything in the cloud and moving to AWS and we will put everything there and manage it as a framework going forward.

How was the initial setup?

I'm not using it day in, day out and I did not handle the initial setup. There is a team involved with that side of the product. I'm using it for the closing of the accounting cycle every month. I don't handle implementation tasks. 

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

I cannot speak to the pricing. I don't handle billing or payments. 

What other advice do I have?

We're customers and end-users.

While I cannot speak to the exact version number, my understanding is that we are using the most up-to-date version of the solution. 

I'd advise those considering the solution to go for AWS products. They are the best. You will have more synergy between your software. It's nice not having multi-software working on the technology itself. If you can, use as many genuine Amazon products as possible and integrate them together. 

Overall, I would rate the product at a seven out of ten. 

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Flag as inappropriate
MM
Head of Data Warehouse & Business Intelligence at a comms service provider with 501-1,000 employees
Real User
Top 20
The product is simple to use but it should be more flexible

Pros and Cons

  • "The product is relatively easy to use because there is no indexing and no partitions."
  • "The product could be improved by making it more flexible."

What is our primary use case?

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.

What is most valuable?

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.

What needs improvement?

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.

For how long have I used the solution?

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

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

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

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

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. 

What other advice do I have?

I would rate it a five out of ten. 

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Raghunandan Rajput
Data Engineer at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Top 20
Full AWS integration, well maintained, but lacking main features from competitors

Pros and Cons

  • "I find the most valuable features to be the MPP style of processing, which mostly all of the data warehouses provide. The ability to integrate all other AWS services, such as NSS and S3, with little effort is very helpful. The service is well maintained, there are update patches frequently."
  • "We recently moved from the DC2 cluster to the RA3 cluster, which is a different node type and we are finding some issues with the RA3 cluster regarding connection and processing. There is room for improvement in this area. We are in talks with AWS regarding the connection issues."

What is our primary use case?

Redshift is a managed service for data warehouses.

What is most valuable?

I find the most valuable features to be the MPP style of processing, which mostly all of the data warehouses provide. The ability to integrate all other AWS services, such as NSS and S3, with little effort is very helpful. The service is well maintained, there are update patches frequently.

What needs improvement?

We recently moved from the DC2 cluster to the RA3 cluster, which is a different node type and we are finding some issues with the RA3 cluster regarding connection and processing. There is room for improvement in this area. We are in talks with AWS regarding the connection issues.

In an upcoming release, I would like to have a Snowflake-like feature where we can create another cluster in the same data warehouse, with the same data. You can create a different cluster and compute nodes for each of your use cases, for retail, and for your data analyst all while keeping your underlying data safe.

Additionally, the cluster resize process takes down the cluster for too long, approximately 15 minutes. There are limitations to the size, you can resize only by a multiplier of two, for example, if you have four nodes then you can either go to eight nodes or you can come down to two nodes. There should be fewer limitations.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using Amazon Redshift for approximately one year.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

There are three people in my organization using this soltuon.

How are customer service and technical support?

Their technical support is good. They provide assistance when we need it but since we were experiencing a connection issue it was taking longer to get a resolution. We had to involve a vendor to get it resolved for us.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

I have previously used ClickHouse.

How was the initial setup?

The installation was easy.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The price of the solution is reasonable. According to the RA3 cluster particularly, it provides 128 GB of storage with only four nodes. If you can manage your computations processes with the help of materialized views and proper queries. I think the IP clusters are very useful and overall fair for the price.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We have been evaluating Snowflake and are in the POC phase. If it passes our quality tests then we will be moving to it soon.

What other advice do I have?

I rate Amazon Redshift a seven out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Public Cloud
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Flag as inappropriate