3 ms·

So redshift took 155 seconds + 17 hours (17 * 3600) = 61355 secs total vs 1491 Hadoop Looks like to me Hadoop is about 40 times faster...

• deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
• MBCook 14y ago
  That's like saying a bicycle is faster than a car because I can buy a bike in 10 minutes while it may take me a couple of hours to get through the car's paperwork. If you do enough queries, redshift will come out faster (assuming the numbers are correct).
  • seanmcdirmid 14y ago
    That's assuming Hive doesn't have it's own special format that could be converted to to improve performance, right?
  • TallGuyShort 14y ago
    If you do enough queries, you should spend the time to use RCFile for Hive, in which case redshift wont come out _that_ much faster. The point is the 17 hours is not negligible.
    • dromidas 14y ago
      That is a good case since customers who typically need a datawarehouse aren't just going to upload data once... they probably are going to upload frequently.
      • TallGuyShort 14y ago
        You're missing my point and resorting to sarcasm - very nice </sarcasm>. My point is not that Hive is the better choice because everyone is going to reload their data frequently. My point is that if you want a fair benchmark, don't use an obviously slow data format for Hive. They spent time importing data optimized for RedShift, but they took a very naive approach for Hive. I'm sure RedShift will still be faster, but not 10 times faster.