Apache Hive vs. Amazon Redshift

Apache Hive shines for ad-hoc analysis and plugging into BI tools. Its SQL-like syntax allows for ease of use not for only for engineers but also for data analysts. Through our experience, there are probably more desirable tools to use if you are planning on integrating Hive into your processing pipeline.

Incentivized

If the number of connections is expected to be low, but the amounts of data are large or projected to grow it is a good solutions especially if there is previous exposure to PostgreSQL. Speaking of Postgres, Redshift is based on several versions old releases of PostgreSQL so the developers would not be able to take advantage of some of the newer SQL language features. The queries need some fine-tuning still, indexing is not provided, but playing with sorting keys becomes necessary. Lastly, there is no notion of the Primary Key in Redshift so the business must be prepared to explain why duplication occurred (must be vigilant for)

Incentivized

• Hive syntax is almost like SQL, so for someone already familiar with SQL it takes almost no effort to pick up Hive.
• To be able to run map reduce jobs using json parsing and generate dynamic partitions in parquet file format.
• Simplifies your experience with Hadoop especially for non-technical/coding partners.

Incentivized

• Redshift is fully managed. Small teams do not have the resources to maintain a cluster. CloudWatch metrics are provided out-of-the-box, and it is easy to configure alarms.
• Redshift's console allows you to easily inspect and manage queries, and manage the performance of the cluster.
• Redshift is ubiquitous; many products (e.g., ETL services) integrate with it out-of-the-box.
• Writing .csvs to S3 and querying them through Redshift Spectrum is convenient.

Incentivized

• Use Hive for analytical work loads. Write once and read many scenarios. Do not prefer updates and deletes.
• Behind scenes Hive creates map reduce jobs. Hive performance is slow compared to Apache Spark.
• Map reduce writes the intermediate outputs to dial whereas Spark operates in in-memory and uses DAG.

Incentivized

• It could benefit from adding data integrity and programming tools common to other database management systems.
• Amazon Redshift is based on PostgreSQL 8.0.2. That version of PostgreSQL was released in December 2006. While PostgreSQL was much improved since then, the new features were not implemented in Redshift. Many basic features are missing from it.
• Primary keys can be declared but not enforced. Referential integrity (foreign keys) can be declared but not enforced. UNIQUE and CHECK constraints are not supported and cannot be declared.
• IDENTITY can be declared on a column, and Redshift will put unique values into it. However: IDENTITY values in the newly inserted rows won’t be incremental or sequential. To implement a sequential number, you need to write your own custom code.
• There are no stored procedures in Redshift. We are writing SQL script files, and then parsing and running them one statement at a time from a Python program. This also enabled us to implement execution-time error logging.
• In SQL scripts, to check for the row count of affected rows, a complicated join query against some system tables or views has to be executed.
• Data Control Language (DCL) does not exist. No statements like IF, WHILE, DO, RAISERROR, etc.
• On performance of views… Views do not “pass-through” a query parameter which is a potential problem for performance.
• When selecting against a view with the WHERE clause outside of the view, the inner query of the view will be executed first without consideration for the WHERE clause, and only then the WHERE clause will be applied.
• Certain clauses of SQL work many times faster than other clauses. So be careful and test your statements for performance earlier rather than later, especially if working with a large data set.
• There was a situation when DELETE FROM JOIN was unacceptably slow. Replacing JOIN with the USING clause made DELETE instantaneous.

Incentivized

Since I do not know the second data warehouse solution that integrate with HDFS as well as Hive.

Hive is a very good big data analysis and ad-hoc query platform, which supports scaling also. The BI processes can be easily integrated with Hadoop via the Hive. It can deal with a much larger data set that traditional RDBMS can not. It is a "must-have" component of the big data domain.

Incentivized

Overall it serves all our aspects of data management like data cleaning, data manipulation, and data reporting on the cloud platform. We can create stored procedures and triggers in it very easily as all the options are self suggested in it. We can easily attach the results of ARS to the other tools as well for drawing the statistical results.

Incentivized

Apache Hive is a FOSS project and its open source. We need not definitely comment on anything about the support of open source and its developer community. But, it has got tremendous developer support, awesome documentation. I would justify the fact that much support can be gathered from the community backup.

Incentivized

The support was great and helped us in a timely fashion. We did use a lot of online forums as well, but the official documentation was an ongoing one, and it did take more time for us to look through it. We would have probably chosen a competitor product had it not been for the great support

Incentivized

We have used a simple but necessary function such as merging certain data tables, which although they may be from different areas, complement each other or are necessary, you can use metadata if what you need is to validate the origin of your information and what impact it has, is also feasible.

Incentivized

We evaluated [Amazon] Redshift vs BigQuery vs Amazon EMR, back in 2014. Back then BigQuery cost was slightly higher than that of [Amazon] Redshift price structure. Amazon EMR, needs lots more management (Admin tasks) and EMR is designed to be ephemeral and not designed to be a data store. [Amazon] Redshift was ideal with the price structure, performance and ROI[.]

Incentivized

• Good ROI for being able to access data easily across the network, we have large amounts of data and this is a good system to access it
• Good ROI for being easy to learn how to use for new employees, not much time spent which saves costs
• Good ROI for being able to integrate with Spark and other applications, hence data can be analyzed through programs

Incentivized

• It allows for an almost seamless integration of our data which can then be used by other departments for analytical purposes.
• No in house resources are needed for keeping the data alive and performing backup/migration tasks of the data in its end state.

Incentivized