Live data from Hacker News

Most companies do not need Snowflake or Databricks

kjhealey.medium.com

31–40 of 140 posts

Re: Most companies do not need Snowflake or Databricks

#31
> The Fortune 100 have a use case for these companies, the rest are overpaying.

There is a difference between "a use case for $data_platform" and "a data use case for $data_platform". Scope on the first one is the platform in $data_platform" and second is the data specifics requirements in $data_platform.

Working on a non-Fortune100 insurance company in Europe, almost all our use cases can be easily done on traditional RDBMS like SQL Server, or on BI tools like SAS. Thankfully with higher granularity over time, Excel usage is fading out constantly. No big data, no heavy computing necessary - at least from my point of view.

All setups in place today, can be called self-service platforms. With cautious estimations we have at least 100 of such "platforms" running since years, or even decades.

This situation implies direct, we have a use case for a $data_platform itself. Costs are the biggest driver here, mainly due to the hidden costs of keeping these 100 systems up and running. Governance and management of the data, locked-in in all these stores, processed by slow and ugly SQLs nobody understands anymore, and with an unknown state of data quality, is key today.

Re: Most companies do not need Snowflake or Databricks

#32
> The cost for something that can be replicated free and open source is absurd.

open source it may be. free it is not. paying an expert to correctly deploy an open source solution takes time and money.

oh you want it maintained?

the three recommendations sound like those of a consultant. they work great with exec buy-in, and are a joke without.

yes, yes, you just have to explain yourself. just help management understand. justification is part of the role. how long does that take, and how much effort? (the answer is subjective and contextual.)

to be blunt, this kind of advice is barely more than “do better.” it ignores the situational example of using snowflake cheaply. it acts like most devs aren’t just going to go fire up a postgres rds - you said open source! it oversimplifies all problems, implicitly, to you.

> Pay to make a problem disappear.

no, pay to change the parameters of the problem. this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how to get things done in a constrained environment. it isn’t either/or, and every saas comes with problems. you pay to trade problems. otherwise it wouldn’t be worth a blog post name dropping and shitting on databricks and snowflake costs. in the hands of an untrained user or in a sufficiently constrained environment, they cost a lot - that’s one of the problems you buy. cost management.

> a talk with your local Dev Ops Engineer/ manager to discuss how to secure your implementations

again, hope you’ve taken the time to build these bridges. the author does indicate this is most important.

and it has a cost. someone is building that bridge, and likely someone from each side.

you sometimes pay vendors to deal with technical problems so you can deal with non-technical ones.

most importantly, don’t assume a random stranger on the internet has sufficient context to give you worthwhile recommendations.

Re: Most companies do not need Snowflake or Databricks

#33
post #27

True from a purely technical point-of-view, but doesn't take into account how companies make decisions about adopting platform tech and that they're making these choices for good reasons. When companies choose SF or DB they don't make a decision to install one of these platforms because there is no combination of open-source components and bespoke engineering work that could replace them and even be more flexible and…

Many companies also install DB, k8, etc. because costs don't matter as much. In the times of easy money they focus on running fast, borrowing if needed. When money is harder to borrow, as it is now, some of those decisions get reassessed. My 2c.

cost of migration is part of any assessment worth anything. rarely cheap, rarely on time.

not that some companies won’t bleed themselves out in a panicked effort to try and stop a paper cut.

Re: Most companies do not need Snowflake or Databricks

#34
Most companies don't need a lot of things.

I don't do a whole lot of data analytics anymore, but I'd say: Start with figuring out how much data you actually have. We still see companies claim to have vast amounts of data, but in reality they are talking about less than a TB of data, frequently just a few 100GB. When you operate at that scale, just chuck your data into whatever database you're comfortable with and do SQL queries, it's fine.

Once you hit the scale where you have "enough" data I'd agree with many of the other comments: Managing open source or home grown solutions quickly become more expensive than just paying for a service. Not quite the same, but we considered deploying a few solutions on OpenStack, but once you paid for training and staff it turned out to be cheaper to just give VMWare more money.

Re: Most companies do not need Snowflake or Databricks

#35
My experience is that there is a lot of milage for small and medium enterprises to use your normal RDBMS replication to create a copy of your OLTP DB that drives your business and run your analytics on that. And put up with complaining it can be slow to do inefficient analytics queries.

Really, after spending silly amounts of time and hassle (and money) on the fancy snowflake or whatever, you discover its not massively faster for those small and medium businesses. And now you have to keep paying for it and keep maintaining it, which is a often actually a bigger burden than keeping a normal RDBMS replica alive.

Re: Most companies do not need Snowflake or Databricks

#36

I work as a solution architect at a consulting firm that builds analytical data platforms for customers. Our company has a partnership with Snowflake, which means all the solutions we build are pushed to use Snowflake. Their sales strategy is very Oracle-like and at least in my circles many Snowflake sales employees are ex-Oracle. This means our sales and Snowflake sales are the best of friends. Formally they'll deny…

> and at least in my circles many Snowflake sales employees are ex-Oracle. given my previous experiences with Snowflake sales, this would not surprise me in the slightest. A small list of the incredibly pushy things SF sales teams did: - called up junior team members and pushed them to sign a renewal deal - point blank refused to explain how credits translated to real world money when pressed about how much usage we…

sorry, but, there’s something about this that doesn’t smell right.

junior ic being asked to sign a contract makes zero sense. that’s insanity. plenty of managers at plenty of companies lack that level of authority.

sales teams use slimy tactics. that’s a given. time limits, multi-years, etc, etc, etc. trying to get the wrong person to sign is a different category entirely.

maybe you ran across the “best of the best” sales people there, but, this sounds sufficiently outlandish that i have to question it a bit.

Re: Most companies do not need Snowflake or Databricks

#37
post #3

Which use cases cannot do without Snowflake or Databricks?

Any typical analytics use case, where a single dataset (think a single table) is less than 2TB and the total data size is less than 10-20 TB in the organization. If that's you, you very likely don't need Snowflake and definitely not Databricks. An RDBMS would suffice, I recommend Postgres. These sizes are just my thumb rules. Your mileage may vary. I have people in my network use Snowflake with a total data size of 5…

years ago, had this one college professor, students would spend the time before class asking him to divide two fractional numbers, and he would rattle off a few decimal places after calculating, to cheers from the students that had their calculators out with the answers. the excitement would build with every correct decimal point.

he didn’t actually need a calculator.

but he did own one.

hopefully this does not cause your blood to go through a state change.

Re: Most companies do not need Snowflake or Databricks

#39

> The cost for something that can be replicated free and open source is absurd. open source it may be. free it is not. paying an expert to correctly deploy an open source solution takes time and money. oh you want it maintained? the three recommendations sound like those of a consultant. they work great with exec buy-in, and are a joke without. yes, yes, you just have to explain yourself. just help management underst…

[deleted]

Re: Most companies do not need Snowflake or Databricks

#40

> The cost for something that can be replicated free and open source is absurd. open source it may be. free it is not. paying an expert to correctly deploy an open source solution takes time and money. oh you want it maintained? the three recommendations sound like those of a consultant. they work great with exec buy-in, and are a joke without. yes, yes, you just have to explain yourself. just help management underst…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN