Amazon Redshift vs. SAP Adaptive Server Enterprise (ASE)

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Amazon Redshift
Score 9.0 out of 10
N/A
Amazon Redshift is a hosted data warehouse solution, from Amazon Web Services.
$0.24
per GB per month
SAP Adaptive Server Enterprise (ASE)
Score 6.9 out of 10
N/A
SAP Adaptive Server Enterprise (ASE) is a transactional relational database, boasting fast, reliable online transaction processing (OLTP). SAP ASE is the company's transactional database within the SAP Business Technology Platform portfolio.N/A
Pricing
Amazon RedshiftSAP Adaptive Server Enterprise (ASE)
Editions & Modules
Redshift Managed Storage
$0.24
per GB per month
Current Generation
$0.25 - $13.04
per hour
Previous Generation
$0.25 - $4.08
per hour
Redshift Spectrum
$5.00
per terabyte of data scanned
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Amazon RedshiftSAP Adaptive Server Enterprise (ASE)
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Amazon RedshiftSAP Adaptive Server Enterprise (ASE)
Best Alternatives
Amazon RedshiftSAP Adaptive Server Enterprise (ASE)
Small Businesses
Google BigQuery
Google BigQuery
Score 8.5 out of 10
InterSystems IRIS
InterSystems IRIS
Score 7.7 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
Snowflake
Snowflake
Score 8.9 out of 10
InterSystems IRIS
InterSystems IRIS
Score 7.7 out of 10
Enterprises
Snowflake
Snowflake
Score 8.9 out of 10
SAP IQ
SAP IQ
Score 10.0 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Amazon RedshiftSAP Adaptive Server Enterprise (ASE)
Likelihood to Recommend
9.0
(0 ratings)
10.0
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
-
(0 ratings)
10.0
(0 ratings)
Usability
9.0
(0 ratings)
9.0
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
9.0
(0 ratings)
9.7
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Amazon RedshiftSAP Adaptive Server Enterprise (ASE)
Likelihood to Recommend
If the number of connections is expected to be low, but the amounts of data are large or projected to grow it is a good solutions especially if there is previous exposure to PostgreSQL. Speaking of Postgres, Redshift is based on several versions old releases of PostgreSQL so the developers would not be able to take advantage of some of the newer SQL language features. The queries need some fine-tuning still, indexing is not provided, but playing with sorting keys becomes necessary. Lastly, there is no notion of the Primary Key in Redshift so the business must be prepared to explain why duplication occurred (must be vigilant for)
Read full review
High-performance, high-concurrency transactions are well suited for ASE. ASE is lacking some features in my opinion such as history tables, however there are ways to implement them via workarounds or by using Replication Server. I do think the way the ASE parser and optimizer works are far superior to other products as it is a true cost-based optimizer and the order of the tables in the FROM clause does not really matter although a good SQL coder will place the tables in a meaningful order to make the SQL more readable. ASE is good for applications that require high availability and can be used for mission critical systems.
Read full review
Pros
  • Redshift is fully managed. Small teams do not have the resources to maintain a cluster. CloudWatch metrics are provided out-of-the-box, and it is easy to configure alarms.
  • Redshift's console allows you to easily inspect and manage queries, and manage the performance of the cluster.
  • Redshift is ubiquitous; many products (e.g., ETL services) integrate with it out-of-the-box.
  • Writing .csvs to S3 and querying them through Redshift Spectrum is convenient.
Read full review
  • Easy to setup and maintain
  • Reliable, rarely has major hiccups requiring reboots or crashes
  • Very responsive with complicated queries spanning various tablespaces and hundreds of millions of rows
Read full review
Cons
  • It could benefit from adding data integrity and programming tools common to other database management systems.
  • Amazon Redshift is based on PostgreSQL 8.0.2. That version of PostgreSQL was released in December 2006. While PostgreSQL was much improved since then, the new features were not implemented in Redshift. Many basic features are missing from it.
  • Primary keys can be declared but not enforced. Referential integrity (foreign keys) can be declared but not enforced. UNIQUE and CHECK constraints are not supported and cannot be declared.
  • IDENTITY can be declared on a column, and Redshift will put unique values into it. However: IDENTITY values in the newly inserted rows won’t be incremental or sequential. To implement a sequential number, you need to write your own custom code.
  • There are no stored procedures in Redshift. We are writing SQL script files, and then parsing and running them one statement at a time from a Python program. This also enabled us to implement execution-time error logging.
  • In SQL scripts, to check for the row count of affected rows, a complicated join query against some system tables or views has to be executed.
  • Data Control Language (DCL) does not exist. No statements like IF, WHILE, DO, RAISERROR, etc.
  • On performance of views… Views do not “pass-through” a query parameter which is a potential problem for performance.
  • When selecting against a view with the WHERE clause outside of the view, the inner query of the view will be executed first without consideration for the WHERE clause, and only then the WHERE clause will be applied.
  • Certain clauses of SQL work many times faster than other clauses. So be careful and test your statements for performance earlier rather than later, especially if working with a large data set.
  • There was a situation when DELETE FROM JOIN was unacceptably slow. Replacing JOIN with the USING clause made DELETE instantaneous.
Read full review
  • Full database encryption - need to utilize external keys vs internal - for better separation of duties.
  • History Tables.
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
No answers on this topic
Our licenses are perpetual. It is the support that we will be renewing. We will renew because we continue to use and receive value from the product.
Read full review
Usability
Overall it serves all our aspects of data management like data cleaning, data manipulation, and data reporting on the cloud platform. We can create stored procedures and triggers in it very easily as all the options are self suggested in it. We can easily attach the results of ARS to the other tools as well for drawing the statistical results.
Read full review
It does almost everything we need and for the things it doesn't do natively, we are still able to do using other features. For example, natively history tables weren't supported but we were able to create them using triggers.
Read full review
Support Rating
The support was great and helped us in a timely fashion. We did use a lot of online forums as well, but the official documentation was an ongoing one, and it did take more time for us to look through it. We would have probably chosen a competitor product had it not been for the great support
Read full review
Incredibly responsive, saving us countless hours in troubleshooting.
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
We evaluated [Amazon] Redshift vs BigQuery vs Amazon EMR, back in 2014. Back then BigQuery cost was slightly higher than that of [Amazon] Redshift price structure. Amazon EMR, needs lots more management (Admin tasks) and EMR is designed to be ephemeral and not designed to be a data store. [Amazon] Redshift was ideal with the price structure, performance and ROI[.]
Read full review
Much less effort than Oracle. Much better customer support than Oracle. Roughly equivalent to SQL Server in performance and ease of use. Much better customer service than SQL Server. Different ballpark from IQ. Same customer service.
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • It allows for an almost seamless integration of our data which can then be used by other departments for analytical purposes.
  • No in house resources are needed for keeping the data alive and performing backup/migration tasks of the data in its end state.
Read full review
  • Negative - Costs a lot ... but so do they all.
  • Positive - It does what we need it to do.
Read full review
ScreenShots