7

I just started testing AWS Redshift and populated a single node with the AWS sample data.

Querying a table with 10 or ~400 rows takes around 2 seconds, uncached.

I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding something, but I assumed that would be a lot faster. Is there something I'm missing here?

Thanks! Any feedback appreciated.

enter image description here

1
  • But did you figure out how to get acceptable performance on small tables with Redshift?
    – Joshua R.
    Mar 11, 2020 at 22:41

1 Answer 1

1

The whole idea around Redshift is not to run in a single node. It is actually designed to run in a sharded cluster and it is expected to have very bad numbers within only one node. If you look at the internals you'll see that is actually designed to run on top of a set of nodes, adding an extra layer for the query processing.

If you are already familiar with the basics, you can check the Best practices.

2
  • 6
    sorry, this still doesn't explain the case, it is still a very small table with too few computations to be done. just by doubling the number of instances shouldn't make the performance better on very simple tasks
    – brauliobo
    Feb 9, 2018 at 15:20
  • I also experienced that Redshift takes more time for every fresh queries
    – jai
    Oct 9, 2021 at 13:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.