4 ms·

Sorry, I didn't clarify well. I am sure it scales technically well but not on cost. My experience of TD is > 10 yrs and then the multi-node version was substan

Sorry, I didn't clarify well. I am sure it scales technically well but not on cost. My experience of TD is > 10 yrs and then the multi-node version was substantially more expensive than the single-node version. Also, storage and compute was coupled which meant I had to pay for nodes even if 99% of my data was cold. That's a problem with RedShift too but not for Snowflake. De-coupling storage and compute was a brilliant move by Snowflake. BigQuery can completely abstracted compute - you don't provision compute and only pay for data scanned. However, it gives you a sense of insecurity around cost - A single bad cron job running a query every sec can blow up your cost (real-life experience). Snowflake provides the best cost/performance tradeoff I have seen.

CharlesW 6y ago
> I am sure it scales technically well but not on cost. The honest answer is "it depends". Because Teradata is a different beast, per-query pricing can be significantly cheaper than Snowflake with high-volume workloads. It's worth trying both to evaluate cost and performance. > Also, storage and compute was coupled which meant I had to pay for nodes even if 99% of my data was cold. Yes, it used to be that everything had to into Teradata's high-performance filesystem. These days, Vantage's native object storage support means that you can keep that cold data in S3.
mdavis6890 6y ago
>>However, it gives you a sense of insecurity around cost - A single bad cron job running a query every sec can blow up your cost (real-life experience). Only if you're using on-demand. Instead reserve some slots and pay flat rate. The minimum quantity is very low, and the minimum time is 1min.