Send me as a pdf

Redshift vs Druid (2024)

A detailed comparison

Compare Redshift vs Druid by the following set of categories:

Redshift vs Druid - Architecture

The biggest difference among cloud data warehouses are whether they separate storage and compute, how much they isolate data and compute, and what clouds they can run on.

Redshift has the oldest architecture, being the first Cloud DW in the group. Its architecture wasn’t designed to separate storage & compute. While it now has RA3 nodes which allow you to scale compute and only cache the data you need locally, all compute still operates together. You cannot separate and isolate different workloads over the same data, which puts it behind other decoupled storage/compute architectures. Redshift runs as an isolated tenant per customer, and unlike other cloud data warehouses, it is deployed in your VPC. Redshift offers a serverless option which is based on an abstracted unit called Redshift Processing Unit (RPU) ranging from 8 to 512 in increments of 8. Each RPU provides 2 vCPU and 16GB RAM. Thus, 8 RPU is equivalent to 16 vCPU / 128GB RAM. The minimum RPU is 8.

Druid is an OLAP engine designed to provide fast real time analytics. Druid adopts a clustered architecture with servers that host various role specific processes. These processes address real time and batch ingestion, indexing, querying of historical and real time data. Apache Druid can be deployed as a virtual machine or a Kubernetes based cluster. Druid does not support a decoupled compute & storage architecture. Deep storage in the form of object storage is used to replicate data to.

Redshift is limited in scale because even with RA3, it cannot distribute different workloads across clusters. While it can scale to up to 10 clusters automatically to support query concurrency, it can only handle a maximum of 50 queued queries across all clusters by default.

Druid provides the ability to handle fast ingest and high concurrency. Custom sizing and cluster tuning are required to balance the compute, memory, storage needs of each process within Druid and to provide high concurrency. Druid clusters can be grown by adding nodes with automatic rebalancing of storage segments assigned to nodes. Self hosted Druid on Kubernetes is an option that users leverage to simplify scaling. Additionally, Cloud based managed Druid offerings are being rolled out. However, these managed offerings are limited in scale and scaling is not granular.

Redshift vs Druid - Scalability

There are three big differences among data warehouses and query engines that limit scalability: decoupled storage and compute, dedicated resources, and continuous ingestion.

Redshift does provide a result cache for accelerating repetitive query workloads and also has more tuning options than some others. But it does not deliver much faster compute performance than other cloud data warehouses in benchmarks. Sort keys can be used to optimize performance, but their contribution is limited. There is no support for indexes, and low-latency analytics at large data volumes is hard to achieve. Because Redshift decoupling of storage & compute is limited compared to other cloud data warehouses, it doesn’t support isolating workloads, which means performance can degrade under pressure and competition for resources.

Druid provides high performance through columnar storage format, parallel processing, bitmap indexes and roll-ups. Druid, however, recommends a denormalized data model for performance needs. Join operations in Druid are a relatively new feature with various limitations, especially if there is a need to join large datasets.

Redshift vs Druid - Performance

Performance is the biggest challenge with most data warehouses today.
While decoupled storage and compute architectures improved scalability and simplified administration, for most data warehouses it introduced two bottlenecks; storage, and compute. Most modern cloud data warehouses fetch entire partitions over the network instead of just fetching the specific data needed for each query. While many invest in caching, most do not invest heavily in query optimization. Most vendors also have not improved continuous ingestion or semi-structured data analytics performance, both of which are needed for operational and customer-facing use cases.

Redshift was originally designed to support traditional internal BI reporting and dashboard use cases for analysts. As such, it is typically used as a general-purpose Enterprise data warehouse. With deep integrations into the AWS ecosystem, it can also leverage AWS ML service, making it also useful for ML projects. However, given the coupling of storage & compute, and the difficulty in delivering low-latency analytics at scale, it is less suited for operational use cases and customer-facing use cases like Data Apps. The coupling of storage and compute, together with the need to predefine sort & dist keys for optimal performance, make it challenging to use for Ad-Hoc analytics.

Druid is designed as an OLAP engine to provide fast access to aggregations that are run against large volumes of data. Druid is typically used for customer facing analytics and streaming data processing. Druid is used as an add-on with other data warehousing products that are efficient at scaling, joining, and filtering large volumes of data. It is not a suitable option for data warehouse replacement.

Redshift vs Druid - Use cases

There are a host of different analytics use cases that can be supported by a data warehouse. Look at your legacy technologies and their workloads, as well as the new possible use cases, and figure out which ones you will need to support in the next few years.

Compare other data warehouses

See all data warehouse comparisons ->

Talk to a Firebolt solution architect