Just to clarify, I meant Redshift ra3 storage costs as much as s3, so you're not saving much by keeping things in s3 instead of in Redshift. Although I don't k

Just to clarify, I meant Redshift ra3 storage costs as much as s3, so you're not saving much by keeping things in s3 instead of in Redshift. Although I don't know how Redshift compression compares to something like gzipped parquet. Maybe the data ends up taking more space and thus money. Agreed on that elasticity.