There's a motive here. hapyrus.com is pushing themselves as Redshift consultants. Oh you're using Hadoop? Redshift is better, cheaper and you can pay us to help you use it.
Amazon Redshift is 10x faster and cheaper than Hadoop and Hive
31–40 of 46 posts
Re: Amazon Redshift is 10x faster and cheaper than Hadoop and Hive
#32Worth noting this presentation was made by Hapyrus, a Hadoop specialized startup from 500startups. They know quite a bit about running Hadoop. Following the results of their tests they are now adding Redshift support to their services.
... and want to sell their Redshift services starting with a bang.
Re: Amazon Redshift is 10x faster and cheaper than Hadoop and Hive
#33Comparing a column-oriented RDBMS with parallel query execution versus hadoop is a joke in the first place. Hadoop is extremely slow. That's nothing new. This is not an apples-to-apples comparison whatsoever. How does it compare against Greenplum or Aster or Vertica and is it more cost-effective? Those are important questions.
Especially given that Redshift, Greenplum and Aster directly build on or incorporate technology from PostgreSQL.
Re: Amazon Redshift is 10x faster and cheaper than Hadoop and Hive
#34I haven't tried redshift before, but coming from a MR/Hadoop/Hive background, this seems to me like quite a sensational claim. I'd be very keen to hear other's thoughts on how widely these kinds of gains would apply for BigData processing. As Carl Sagan said.. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan
Hive is not particularly fast in and of itself; it just has horizontal scaling and a SQL-ish front-end. Looking at AWS RedShift's homepage[1] (emphasis added): > Amazon Redshift delivers fast query and I/O performance for virtually any size dataset by using columnar storage technology and parallelizing and distributing queries across multiple nodes. Column stores databases[2] can be screamingly fast for analytics ope…
SAP HANA has a column store, and a row store, and does OLAP (Analytics) and OLTP.
There is a lot of new DB tech, Redshift doesn't seem particularly competitive at the moment unless you only need to use it a portion of the time, where Amazon excels.
Re: Amazon Redshift is 10x faster and cheaper than Hadoop and Hive
#35I'd be interested in seeing a comparison between Redshift and SAP HANA, but a more fair comparison than this one by someone who isn't partisan.
Re: Amazon Redshift is 10x faster and cheaper than Hadoop and Hive
#36Comparing a column-oriented RDBMS with parallel query execution versus hadoop is a joke in the first place. Hadoop is extremely slow. That's nothing new. This is not an apples-to-apples comparison whatsoever. How does it compare against Greenplum or Aster or Vertica and is it more cost-effective? Those are important questions.
Especially given that Redshift, Greenplum and Aster directly build on or incorporate technology from PostgreSQL.
This is true for Vertica as well.
Re: Amazon Redshift is 10x faster and cheaper than Hadoop and Hive
#37Seems like stupid marketing shit
Re: Amazon Redshift is 10x faster and cheaper than Hadoop and Hive
#38Comparing a column-oriented RDBMS with parallel query execution versus hadoop is a joke in the first place. Hadoop is extremely slow. That's nothing new. This is not an apples-to-apples comparison whatsoever. How does it compare against Greenplum or Aster or Vertica and is it more cost-effective? Those are important questions.
Comparing Redshift against Hadoop+Hive is reasonable. As you pointed out... the technologies are very different. However, there is a large overlap in use cases.
I strongly disagree. I am (or was) using both Hadoop and HBase and they are useful for very different purposes (huge amounts of nonstructured data, possibly with difficult-to-predict use cases versus structured data).
Also note that Hive is just a layer over Hadoop with DB-like syntax, it doesn't make Hadoop a DB. It is still running MR queries beneath it.
Re: Amazon Redshift is 10x faster and cheaper than Hadoop and Hive
#39Indeed, this comparison seems fishy.
Nevertheless, I'll take a moment to predict that articles like this will be only becoming more and more frequent in time. Hadoop has entered its "enterprisey" stage, with massively complex, cumbersome code, arcane performance tuning, bullshit consulting business built around it (complete with books and "certificates")...
The more agile competitors will be snapping at its flanks (and ankles), sometimes without merit, and sometimes with.
Re: Amazon Redshift is 10x faster and cheaper than Hadoop and Hive
#40So redshift took 155 seconds + 17 hours (17 * 3600) = 61355 secs total vs 1491 Hadoop Looks like to me Hadoop is about 40 times faster...
That's like saying a bicycle is faster than a car because I can buy a bike in 10 minutes while it may take me a couple of hours to get through the car's paperwork.
If you do enough queries, redshift will come out faster (assuming the numbers are correct).