Amazon Redshift vs Census: What are the differences?
Amazon Redshift: Fast, fully managed, petabyte-scale data warehouse service. It is optimized for data sets ranging from a few hundred gigabytes to a petabyte or more and costs less than $1,000 per terabyte per year, a tenth the cost of most traditional data warehousing solutions; Census: Sync your warehouse data to any app. It syncs your data warehouse with CRM & go-to-market tools. Get your customer success, sales & marketing teams on the same page by sharing the same customer data.
Amazon Redshift and Census belong to "Big Data as a Service" category of the tech stack.
Some of the features offered by Amazon Redshift are:
- Optimized for Data Warehousing- It uses columnar storage, data compression, and zone maps to reduce the amount of IO needed to perform queries. Redshift has a massively parallel processing (MPP) architecture, parallelizing and distributing SQL operations to take advantage of all available resources.
- Scalable- With a few clicks of the AWS Management Console or a simple API call, you can easily scale the number of nodes in your data warehouse up or down as your performance or capacity needs change.
- No Up-Front Costs- You pay only for the resources you provision. You can choose On-Demand pricing with no up-front costs or long-term commitments, or obtain significantly discounted rates with Reserved Instance pricing.
On the other hand, Census provides the following key features:
- Turn your warehouse into a Customer Data Platform
- Sync with customer facing tools
- No more data outages
What is Amazon Redshift?
What is Census?
Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Why do developers choose Census?
Sign up to add, upvote and see more prosMake informed product decisions
What are the cons of using Amazon Redshift?
What are the cons of using Census?
What companies use Census?
Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions
Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions
Looker , Stitch , Amazon Redshift , dbt
We recently moved our Data Analytics and Business Intelligence tooling to Looker . It's already helping us create a solid process for reusable SQL-based data modeling, with consistent definitions across the entire organizations. Looker allows us to collaboratively build these version-controlled models and push the limits of what we've traditionally been able to accomplish with analytics with a lean team.
For Data Engineering, we're in the process of moving from maintaining our own ETL pipelines on AWS to a managed ELT system on Stitch. We're also evaluating the command line tool, dbt to manage data transformations. Our hope is that Stitch + dbt will streamline the ELT bit, allowing us to focus our energies on analyzing data, rather than managing it.
Currently, we need to ingest the data from Amazon S3 to DB either Amazon Athena or Amazon Redshift. But the problem with the data is, it is in .PSV (pipe separated values) format and the size is also above 200 GB. The query performance of the timeout in Athena/Redshift is not up to the mark, too slow while compared to Google BigQuery. How would I optimize the performance and query result time? Can anyone please help me out?
Aggressive archiving of historical data to keep the production database as small as possible. Using our in-house soon-to-be-open-sourced ETL library, SharpShifter.