4 ms·
It's hardly surprising. The quality of their public products isn't much better than what's described here. It's fine for companies with plenty of engineers, mon
by mnm1 8y ago
It's hardly surprising. The quality of their public products isn't much better than what's described here. It's fine for companies with plenty of engineers, money, and time to base their tools off of, but that's about it. Without building a ton of extra tooling and having specialized information only available through paid support, it's almost impossible to operate anything on aws. The documentation is plentiful, mostly out of date, wrong, incomplete, and difficult to browse, search, and use. Doing devops using aws is a nightmare that never ends. Not to mention the speed of deploying anything is beyond slow, so any work takes many times the amount of time it should. For large companies with plenty of resources, these are minor points. For small and medium sized ones, it's a loss of productivity and money that simply cannot be justified over other methods.
- banku_brougham 8y agoDang probably true for the products you were using but Redshift has been great for me, including the documentation which I have never found to be out of date. I wouldn’t say its the economical option though. Oh and its high time ‘count(distinct) over()’ partitions was supported.