Amazon Redshift is a hosted data warehouse solution, from Amazon Web Services.
$0.24
per GB per month
SingleStore
Score 7.5 out of 10
N/A
SingleStore aims to enable organizations to scale from one to one million customers, handling SQL, JSON, full text and vector workloads in one unified platform.
Amazon Redshifts has fewer features but at the same time, you also have some gains once it is running on AWS Cloud and it is really easy to set up. Besides that, in our case, it is a bit cheaper and we don't really need the extra features that you can find on Snowflake. Another …
Amazon Redshift, BigQuery, and Snowflake are all fully managed data warehouse services that are designed to handle large volumes of structured data and support business intelligence and analytics efforts. However, Amazon Redshift has the upper hand with its cost-effective …
Biggest advantage of Amazon Redshift is it's part of the aws ecosystem. When tuned well it is also very cheap compared to something like snowflake. And compared to spark or databricks, Amazon Redshift is a solid warehouse that's well suited for tabular data. We use it for user …
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 …
Redshift leapfrogged Hive back when Hive was trying to figure out how to implement indexes, providing a more stable, standardized (postgres), easy to use (any postgres client), easier to administer, and scalable solution for querying server logs and raw usage data.
Amazon Redshift is one of the fastest service offerings available in the market now. Plus you get an advantage of using a cutting edge compute service offering from AWS. Other technologies are fast but not as good as Amazon Redshift, I would say. Our business is interested in …
1. Redshift has better compression (automated) consuming less space then competitors 2. Automated Vacuum Delete for having consistent performance 3. AWS introduced ra3 node types for simple separation of compute and storage
Its definitely an improvement on all fronts for our business needs. Again, our MySQL server was really slow and we needed a more efficient solution. It was a major upgrade, but it is much more expensive than an in house server. It was expected but I'd say that lots of headaches …
Amazon Redshift supports multiple data formats including multiple structured data formats. And it is easy to implement a cluster if you do not have knowledge of data lake solution. Also when you do not need a lot of resources, you can just scale down so you do not have to spend …
Amazon Redshift has a better UI, hands down. And it is easy to integrate with bigger tools like Talend. It has many issues when it comes to understanding the architect perspective like Toad, which has a better UI for architect data together. However, that is because we are not …
We like Snowflake for its separation of computing and storage and also the separation of data warehouse different users. We replaced Redshift with Snowflake. However, Snowflake is great for its pay for performance kind of methodology.
Azure SQL Database was discarded because of a less attractive licensing, costs, plus its integrates poorly with many of the Azure offerings as say Azure Data Factory - it is not a true ETL yet. Also, the rest of the tools used were of Open Source type and it did not look like a …
It works on the cloud and we use the platform Dbeaver which is very unique and easy to maintain. There are very limited tools of this kind but the security issues are pretty high within those tools.
As our applications are hosted on AWS service, Redshift is the best option for us. Also, it provide a near to real-time performance on limited datasets and less complex queries. High availability is the major concern for any growing business and AWS is the best option for this. …
We are currently on Redshift, because it was out before Snowflake. However, Snowflake looks promising. It's the new shiny toy that gives options that Redshift does not provide for. The big thing is that storage and compute can be scaled separately, whereas you cannot do that in …
Most of our stack is on AWS, so while Snowflake and BigQuery was a viable option from a performance perspective, it was easier to integrate with RedShift. We considered hosting SQL Server on AWS or using Amazon RDS (Postgres or MySQL), however, the self-service aspect of …
Snowflake supports semi-structured data types and provided solutions to manage/process the semi-structured data. It supported sharing data between the different accounts and makes it easy in the scale and scale down process. Snowflake doesn't limit users on the database.
Amazon Redshift is much easier to set up and start using. It interacts well with the PostgreSQL client (psql) and shares certain basic data dictionary, and people familiar with PostgreSQL feel right at home. The cluster is part of AWS services offering, and it works well with …
Some organizations use PostgreSQL as an OLAP store. PostgreSQL offers a modern SQL dialect, data types, and features that Redshift lacks. RDS is a great managed PostgreSQL product. However, PostgreSQL is a poor choice for a data warehouse. It's row-oriented storage requires …
I can only compare it with Exasol, which I have used a similar base, which manages the Hadoop scheme and is very similar to SingleStore. SingleStore has many advantages: being in the cloud, with just a couple of clicks I can increase the capacity, the configuration is super …
first of all SingleStoreis a cluster with high availability and easy to use. you need to design you tables / procedures such in a way that your SingleStore perform well and with handle heavy load
Reduces database sprawl, ETL costs, infrastructure expenses, etc. Supports horizontal scaling, unlike PostgreSQL & Aurora, and real-time analytics and fast transactions (HTAP), unlike Snowflake & ClickHouse.Handles high-volume workloads with thousands of concurrent queries. No …
SingleStore (memsql) out performs based on our analysis with sample data sets within org. We could see limitations with other products which SingleStore can overcall like scaling with data while performing with similar SLA. It also has the advantage of row store and column …
SingleStore outperforms Snowflake in real-time analytics and transactional workloads but lags in large-scale batch processing. Compared to MongoDB Atlas, SingleStore excels in complex SQL queries and joins, while MongoDB handles unstructured, document-based data better. Its …
Greenplum is good in handling very large amount of data. Concurrency in Greenplum was a major problem. Features available in SingleStore like Pipelines and in memory features are not available in Greenplum.
Gemfire was not scaling well like SingleStore. Support of both …
We previously used Bigquery for our application, and a single store gave us very good performance over Bigquery. But the comparison is not apples to apples, as Bigquery is more of a data warehousing solution.
SingleStore is just a bigger engine with more capability. Its ability to handle larger data sets with ease is its biggest advantage. These other database solutions are great for smaller scale projects that don't include large data sets but Singlestore greatly out performs in …
It has more APIs and other access methods. It has a multi-version concurrency control (MVCC) Distributed RDBMS that combines an in-memory row-oriented and a disc-based column-oriented storage with patented universal storage to handle transactional and analytical workloads in …
Its easier to query and faster. Ingestion is for the most part easier to understand and monitor and directly integrated with other storage solution products we use such as AWS S3. Singlestore overall is a better database to serve up an application large amounts of data very …
SingleStore is built for fast data ingestion and fast queries against large tables (> billions of rows). This is possible because of the column store engine that SingleStore uses. SingleStore also support a memory engine. Pipelines is also another big advantage. Being able to …
We knew early on that MySQL (Amazon Aurora) would not be suitable for this workload as it cannot query our time series data as fast as SingleStore. We also use MongoDB Atlas for another application but we could not achieve the raw speed we saw from SingleStore. Our technical …
We were initially using AWS Aurora which worked well at the time but as we grew it just felt like a lumbering beast - even with tier upgrades. We started looking at caching & search options to help make searches faster - we were already using redis. We looked at and even …
Timescale was the biggest alternative option we looked at for SingleStore, however the requirement to learn a new syntax (due to not being SQL compatible) was our biggest pain point.
Supporting a new language would require alterations to the Laravel framework, as this only …
SingleStore provides an abstraction layer in managing a sharded database solution reducing complexity for the FLOWD team. Coupled with the SingleStore Managed Service, we are partnering with SingleStore to provide FLOWD services to various utilities & councils.
SingleStore is eons faster than other database providers, and it absolutely crushes calculations & aggregations. While other providers may have a few quality of life enhancements over SingleStore, the speed benefits of SS far outweigh the cons. At the end of the day, speed …
SingleStore provides performance for real-time data analytics application where as Snowflake is more for data engineers and not fast enough for real-time data analytics apps.
As I said before, we felt that running queries on BigQuery for every query is really slow, especially from an user point of view. After seeing the drastically improved latency of SingleStore we decided to use to solve this issue. We currently use it to run low volume queries …
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)
Well-Suited Scenarios: Real-Time Analytics: Financial trading platforms requiring instant insights. Operational Dashboards: Retail businesses monitoring live sales. IoT Data Processing: Smart device monitoring with high data ingestion. Fraud Detection: Banks detect suspicious transactions instantly. Less Appropriate Scenarios: Archival Storage: Cold data storage with infrequent access. Low-Volume Workloads: Small-scale apps with minimal data processing needs. Complex ETL Pipelines: Heavy data transformations without real-time demands.
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.
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.
It does not release a patch to have back porting; it just releases a new version and stops support; it's difficult to keep up to that pace.
Support engineers lack expertise, but they seem to be improving organically.
Lacks enterprise CDC capability: Change data capture (CDC) is a process that tracks and records changes made to data in a database and then delivers those changes to other systems in real time.
For enterprise-level backup & restore capability, we had to implement our model via Velero snapshot backup.
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.
[Until it is] supported on AWS ECS containers, I will reserve a higher rating for SingleStore. Right now it works well on EC2 and serves our current purpose, [but] would look forward to seeing SingleStore respond to our urge of feature in a shorter time period with high quality and security.
When it comes to ingestion speed, SingleStore is probably at the top. Being able to create pipelines using SQL to ingest data from S3, Kafka, and other sources, is a great advantages. This means you can dynamically ingest data by customizing your SQL queries. SingleStore pipelines are pretty sophisticated, yet very simple. Few lines of codes and you are ingesting data, while still able to perform analytical queries on your billions of row tables.
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
The support deep dives into our most complexed queries and bizarre issues that sometimes only we get comparing to other clients. Our special workload (thousands of Kafka pipelines + high concurrency of queries). The response match to the priority of the request, P1 gets immediate return call. Missing features are treated, they become a client request and being added to the roadmap after internal consideration on all client needs and priority. Bugs are patched quite fast, depends on the impact and feasible temporary workarounds. There is no issue that we haven't got a proper answer, resolution or reasoning
We allowed 2-3 months for a thorough evaluation. We saw pretty quickly that we were likely to pick SingleStore, so we ported some of our stored procedures to SingleStore in order to take a deeper look. Two SingleStore people worked closely with us to ensure that we did not have any blocking problems. It all went remarkably smoothly.
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[.]
Reduces database sprawl, ETL costs, infrastructure expenses, etc. Supports horizontal scaling, unlike PostgreSQL & Aurora, and real-time analytics and fast transactions (HTAP), unlike Snowflake & ClickHouse.Handles high-volume workloads with thousands of concurrent queries. No need for ETL processes, unlike BigQuery & Snowflake. Works with JSON, relational, and key-value data, unlike ClickHouse.
Lower operational complexity - Installation and maintenance is pretty easy
Object scale when used can compete with Traditional Warehouse Systems like Teradata, Netezza, Greenplum
Adds lot of value to the business like couple of operations which never worked in traditional DBMS including HANA, Oracle In Memory, SQL Server In Memory just flew in SingleStore