3 ms·
In that case the fairer comparison should have been to Redshift, though I will concede that Amazon walked into this one themselves by overhyping Aurora's OLAP c
by RandomBK 3y ago
In that case the fairer comparison should have been to Redshift, though I will concede that Amazon walked into this one themselves by overhyping Aurora's OLAP capabilities.
OLTP != OLAP, and the sooner database vendors learn to stay in their lane and focus on one use case, the better.
- re-thc 3y agoOracle claims it works for both OLTP and OLAP. I mean on the fundamentals Heatwave adds a giant memory cache / query engine in front. That alone makes it faster than anything disk based. As to Redshift, yes, they claim it's faster than Redshift too by quite a bit. (I use claim as it's against the ToS to benchmark it independently)
- zX41ZdbW 3y agoThere should not be such a distinction between in-memory and disk based databases. Being in-memory does not make OLAP databases faster. And typically, "in-memory" is a disadvantage and a limiting factor in OLAP database architecture. I have a presentation on this topic: https://presentations.clickhouse.com/meetup53/optimizations/ https://presentations.clickhouse.com/meetup53/optimizations/ It is similar to how frequently someone says "lock-free" to highlight imaginary performance advantages. If someone says a database engine is fast because it is in-memory and lock-free, it smells wrong.