Presto vs. SAP Adaptive Server Enterprise (ASE), legacy

Presto is for interactive simple queries, where Hive is for reliable processing. If you have a fact-dim join, presto is great..however for fact-fact joins presto is not the solution.. Presto is a great replacement for proprietary technology like Vertica

Incentivized

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.

Incentivized

• Linking, embedding links and adding images is easy enough.
• Once you have become familiar with the interface, Presto becomes very quick & easy to use (but, you have to practice & repeat to know what you are doing - it is not as intuitive as one would hope).
• Organizing & design is fairly simple with click & drag parameters.

Incentivized

• 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

Incentivized

• Presto was not designed for large fact fact joins. This is by design as presto does not leverage disk and used memory for processing which in turn makes it fast.. However, this is a tradeoff..in an ideal world, people would like to use one system for all their use cases, and presto should get exhaustive by solving this problem.
• Resource allocation is not similar to YARN and presto has a priority queue based query resource allocation..so a query that takes long takes longer...this might be alleviated by giving some more control back to the user to define priority/override.
• UDF Support is not available in presto. You will have to write your own functions..while this is good for performance, it comes at a huge overhead of building exclusively for presto and not being interoperable with other systems like Hive, SparkSQL etc.

Incentivized

• Full database encryption - need to utilize external keys vs internal - for better separation of duties.
• History Tables.

Incentivized

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.

Incentivized

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.

Incentivized

Incredibly responsive, saving us countless hours in troubleshooting.

Incentivized

Presto is good for a templated design appeal. You cannot be too creative via this interface - but, the layout and options make the finalized visual product appealing to customers. The other design products I use are for different purposes and not really comparable to Presto.

Incentivized

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.

Incentivized

• Presto has helped scale Uber's interactive data needs. We have migrated a lot out of proprietary tech like Vertica.
• Presto has helped build data driven applications on its stack than maintain a separate online/offline stack.
• Presto has helped us build data exploration tools by leveraging it's power of interactive and is immensely valuable for data scientists.

Incentivized

• Negative - Costs a lot ... but so do they all.
• Positive - It does what we need it to do.

Incentivized