I use the solution in my company for reporting.

The tool's flexibility and capacity for expansion are areas of concern where improvements are required.

I have been using Teradata for two years. My company is an end user of the product.

It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

In our company, when it comes to Teradata, we have an appliance in place, and we plan to upgrade to another appliance that offers more capacity.

I rate the product's scalability to be below average.

Around 100 people in my company use the tool.

The tool is used daily in my company.

It is difficult to get someone with technical expertise involved with the solution's technical support team. I rate the technical support a four out of ten.

I only have experience with Teradata.

I rate the product's initial setup phase as above average on a scale of one to ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises version.

For installation, my company only used the services offered by Teradata.

I rate the product price a nine on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive.

My company has evaluated other options against Teradata, and I see that it has been used in our company for the past four years.

The tool did enhance our company's data warehousing and analytics capabilities.

Teradata was crucial for our company's data analysis, especially for every campaign we run, including the pricing, exercises, and analysis.

Teradata's feature, which had the most significant impact on our company's data management, revolves around the analytics feature it offers.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

It's very mature from as technology perspective.

The solution overall needs improvement in its stability, support and pricing.

I have been using Teradata for 23 years.

The stability is bad.

Two clients are using the solution.

The initial setup is straightforward.

Overall, I rate the solution a one out of ten.

The use cases vary based on the projects. In most projects, I worked with ETL tools like Informatica alongside Teradata. However, there was a specific project where we built a real-time data warehouse for active directory data using Teradata.

Oracle was the source system, with potential additional sources feeding into the Oracle database. We used Unix scripting to extract data from Oracle and leverage a colleague's expertise in Unix for the Teradata portion.

We wrote ETL queries and performed data profiling before loading the data into the target data warehouse for further processing by other tools.

Our task was to create a data warehouse, an active data warehouse in Teradata.

We created and constructed the warehouse. We used multiple loading processes like MultiLoad, FastLoad, and Teradata Pump. But those are loading processes, and Teradata is a powerful tool because if we consider older technologies, its architecture with nodes, virtual processes, and nodes is a unique concept.

Later, other technologies like Informatica also adopted the concept of nodes from Informatica PowerCenter version 7.x. Previously, it was a client-server architecture, but later, it changed to the nodes concept. Like, we can have the database available 24/7, 365 days. If one node fails, other nodes can take care of it. Informatica adopted all those concepts when it changed its architecture. Even Oracle databases have since adapted their architecture to them.

However, this particular Teradata company initially started with its own different type of architecture, which major companies later adopted.

It has grown now, but initially, whatever query we sent it would be mapped into a particular component. After that, it goes to the virtual processor and down to the disk, where the actual physical data is loaded.

So, in between, there's a map, which acts like a data dictionary. It also holds information about each piece of data, where it's loaded, and on which particular virtual processor or node the data resides. Because Teradata comes with a four-node architecture, or however many nodes we choose, the cost is determined by that initially. So, what type of data does each and every node hold? It's a shared-no architecture.

So, whatever task is given to a virtual processor it will be processed. If there's a failure, then it will be taken care of by another virtual processor.

Moreover, this solution has impacted the query time and data performance.

In Teradata, there's a lot of joining, partitioning, and indexing of records. There are primary and secondary indexes, hash indexing, and other indexing processes.

To improve query performance, we first analyze the query and tune it. If a join needs a secondary index, which plays a major role in filtering records, we might reconstruct that particular table with the secondary index.

This tuning involves partitioning and indexing. We use these tools and technologies to fine-tune performance.

When it comes to integration, tools like Informatica seamlessly connect with Teradata. We ensure the Teradata database is configured correctly in Informatica, including the proper hostname and properties for the load process. We didn't find any major complexity or issues with integration. But, these technologies are quite old now.

With newer big data technologies, we've worked with a four-layer architecture, pulling data from Hadoop Lake to Teradata. We configure Teradata with the appropriate hostname and credentials, and use BTEQ queries to load data.

Previously, we converted the data warehouse to a CLD model as per Teradata's standardized procedures, moving from an ETL to an EMT process. This allowed us to perform gap analysis on missing entities based on the model and retrieve them from the source system again. We found Teradata integration straightforward and compatible with other tools.

Teradata is an expensive tool. Like, if you're already using Microsoft products like Windows, they'll market all their products together. And with the rise of cloud technologies, companies will adopt solutions that offer them some privileges or facilities.

Similar to how SAP does it in the market, so do Microsoft and other companies. Even Oracle and other such tools are quite commonly seen compared to Teradata's competitors in everyday solutions.

I have been using this solution for seven years.

Teradata's technical support is responsive. Although I haven't directly interacted with them, my colleagues at Captivine have.

They've efficiently resolved queries, adhering to SLAs, often within two to three days, even with time zone differences between India and the US. This quick turnaround is especially crucial for client or production issues that require urgent attention.

We didn't frequently encounter issues with Teradata because the tools are robust and well-documented. Teradata provides comprehensive documentation and resources with the purchase of a license, aiding our day-to-day operations.

There was one exception case, but overall, we managed well with the resources provided by Teradata.

Currently, I work closely with the AI and ML team, focusing on frameworks like NumPy.

At my company, we use Snowflake as a data warehouse. I primarily worked on the ETL side, ensuring data accuracy, governance, modeling, and loading data into the Snowflake warehouse. But it was part of a particular project.

I've also used Oracle as a source and target, as well as SQL Server. In my experience at Capgemini North America, most clients like Elkhared, Levi's, General Electric, etc., used Teradata as their primary database.

While the architecture has evolved with new technologies, Teradata remains a powerful tool.

Teradata is an expensive tool.

Teradata, along with Informatica, is expensive. Teradata is still widely used in the Middle East, especially in banks across Dubai and Saudi Arabia, indicating its continued relevance. Compared to open-source solutions and other market offerings, Teradata remains on the higher end of the pricing spectrum.

Like, if you're already using Microsoft products like Windows, they'll market all their products together. And with the rise of cloud technologies, companies will adopt solutions that offer them some privileges or facilities.

Similar to how SAP does it in the market, so do Microsoft and other companies. Even Oracle and other such tools are quite commonly seen compared to Teradata's competitors in everyday solutions.

Considering its strength in data warehouse technology, I'd rate it between a nine out of ten. For data warehousing specifically, it has a lot of built-in components that can handle various requirements.

However, there's also big data technology to consider these days. But for a traditional data warehouse environment, Teradata is a very successful solution, a very good database, actually.

We use Teradata IntelliFlex for data warehousing, which is a way of presenting data for faster retrieval.

The solution's banking model, called FSLDM (Financial Services Logical Data Model), is sophisticated and good.

The solution’s pricing, scalability, and technical support response time could be improved.

I have been using Teradata IntelliFlex for one year.

Teradata IntelliFlex is a stable solution.

Since the solution is limited to its hardware, it has issues and limitations about scalability. Around 100 users are extensively using the solution in our organization.

The solution's technical support team is supportive but takes two to three days to respond.

Teradata IntelliFlex comes with hardware that is already deployed and preconfigured.

You purchase, deliver, and install the hardware and software to deploy the solution. People from Teradata will configure the software for you, and it will be ready.

Teradata IntelliFlex provides a lot of value to our organization.

Users have to pay a yearly licensing fee for Teradata IntelliFlex, which is very expensive.

Before choosing Teradata IntelliFlex, we evaluated other options like SQL Server and Oracle. We chose Teradata IntelliFlex because of its core competitive advantage in terms of a readymade model for the financial sector.

All analytics and reporting in our organization are done through the solution. Two people are required to maintain and operate the solution. We need five data modelers to design and develop the solution.

I advise users not to get stuck with the solution since it's expensive. The change on this platform is also expensive since it has so many associations with other layers. Currently, the new architecture for the data is to eliminate its complexity because it's a complex solution.

Overall, I rate Teradata IntelliFlex a seven out of ten.

We used its capabilities for critical tasks, particularly in the realm of recovery jobs. We capitalized on the database's ability to transfer entire blocks of data rather than just transactional information. This approach, especially when dealing with block-level data, proved significantly faster compared to other techniques such as UBC WAN.

It is a highly robust software solution.

The primary challenge with Teradata lies in its cost structure, encompassing subscription fees, software licenses, and hardware expenses. The management of these pricing components can be notably high. I believe there's room for improvement and investment in Teradata's ETL engine, making it more competitive with tools like IBM DataStage. Considering the growing importance of big data ecosystems, it could benefit from enhanced compatibility with platforms like Cloudera and tools like Apache Spark. It's essential to bridge the gaps and make Teradata's tools more accessible and user-friendly in the evolving landscape of data virtualization and analytics.

I have been using it for three years.

I would rate its stability capabilities nine out of ten.

I would rate its scalability abilities eight out of ten.

The tech support has been commendable. They adhere to the SLAs and respond promptly to our issues. We haven't experienced any significant delays on their part. I would rate it nine out of ten.

I've collaborated with a multitude of vendors, including Dell for EMC storage, Oracle, Nautilus, and Ericsson for the solution team and platform methodologies. I'm currently deeply involved in projects centered around Big Data and the emerging Cloudera ecosystem. The primary factor driving the adoption of Cloudera and similar big data environments is the cost efficiency they offer, coupled with their ability to seamlessly integrate with multiple data sources.

The initial setup was straightforward.

The deployment process doesn't require an extended timeframe, it can be accomplished in just three days. Additionally, you may allocate an extra two days for preliminary preparations, such as gathering data from the current data house. Approximately 20% of the data house considerations have been factored into the planning. I've encountered certain challenges during the database server upgrades, notably transitioning from version 15.7 to 16.2. Despite being a recurrent process, the notable differences were primarily observed in the extraction engine, particularly in the increased number of workflows. Interestingly, these disparities were more evident in the extraction processes rather than within the database itself.

The cost is substantial, totaling around $1.2 million, solely dedicated to upgrading the hardware. This amount doesn't even cover the software upgrade for the database itself, which comes at an additional cost ranging from two to three thousand dollars. Specifically, for the hardware upgrade, we're dealing with a significant investment, around $1.5 million, involving approximately sixty servers with a combined storage capacity of around twenty-two terabytes. These expenses constitute a substantial financial commitment, especially when factoring in standard costs.

I actively endorse the use of Teradata, particularly for data warehouse solutions, due to its robust handling of raw data and overall stability. The emphasis on retaining raw data is its key strength. However, it's crucial to acknowledge the cost associated with it. To address this, consider forming teams to strategize and mitigate expenses, ensuring a more cost-effective implementation that aligns with your organization's objectives. Overall, I would rate it nine out of ten.

We use Teradata for our organization's data warehouse, where we store data from all enterprise sources. With Teradata's efficient processing, we generate business intelligence reports and support analytics initiatives. Our teams connect to Teradata for valuable insights, enabling data-driven decision-making across departments. The platform's analytics capabilities enhance our understanding of enterprise data for strategic planning and optimization.

The most valuable feature is parallel processing architecture. Teradata's capabilities enhance data management efficiency, support scalability, and contribute to faster query performance, enabling us to derive valuable insights and analytics.

In our experience with Teradata, we haven't seen any significant weaknesses. However, when it comes to scalability, limited interest and success in some areas make us hesitate about upgrading. In the future, I would like to see Teradata incorporate features that allow it to handle unstructured data. Additionally, improvements in documentation to make it more user-friendly and up-to-date would enhance the overall user experience.

I have been working with Teradata for almost six years.

It is quite stable.

It is fairly scalable. In our company, we currently have around 30 to 40 developers working on advanced data development using Teradata.

I would rate the support as an eight out of ten. They are quick to respond to our questions and have been helpful not just with problem-solving but also during patch deployments on the provider.

Before Teradata, I primarily worked with databases like Oracle and Db2, mainly in banking. Teradata's advantage lies in its parallel processing, which sets it apart from competitors like Oracle and Db2. The efficiency in handling large-scale data and analytics makes it a preferred choice in my experience.

My advice for those considering Teradata is that if you are looking for an optimized database, it is worth considering. In my experience, it has been better than Oracle and DB2 in handling large-scale data and analytics efficiently. Overall, I would rate Teradata as an eight out of ten.

We use it as a staging database in our organization, serving as a repository for financial models.

The current operational approach needs improvement. In the past, relying on infrastructure data staging provided flexibility in collaborating with any database provider. However, transitioning to Informatica and integrating it with various data services proved beneficial for serving multiple clients. Despite its advantages, this approach incurred substantial costs in terms of hardware and technical expertise. To address this, there is a need to develop and offer free content and workshops, providing guidelines and technical knowledge for efficient data operation.

I have been working with it for seven years.

I would rate its stability capabilities eight out of ten.

I would rate its scalability abilities six out of ten. While it provides scalability, it is notably complicated.

We previously used IBM, but due to the market requirements, we switched to Teradata.

The initial setup was straightforward.

It takes a couple of hours to be completely deployed.

It comes at a notably high cost for what it offers. Apart from the standard licensing fees, there are supplementary costs associated with the licensing course. I would rate it one out of ten.

Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.

We use it primarily as a dedicated platform for aggregating structured data, essentially serving as our structured data repository or data warehouse.

Their extensive experience in data warehousing, the platform's performance, and their strong reputation in the market are the most valuable.

One issue we've identified is that its performance varies across different on-premises setups and doesn't consistently meet our standards. This limitation necessitates the purchase of Teradata's proprietary hardware to ensure the desired level of performance. The capability to implement it with comparable performance across various private cloud environments, ensuring adaptability to different infrastructure setups would be beneficial.

I have been using it for four years.

The stability is excellent, and I would rate it nine out of ten.

The challenge lies in the necessity to purchase additional hardware for scaling, so I would lean towards a rating of around four out of ten for the overall experience.

The technical support is satisfactory; I would rate it seven out of ten.

I would rate the initial setup six out of ten when it comes to complexity.

I would rate the return on investment eight out of ten.

The cost is significantly high. I would rate it eight out of ten.

Overall, I would rate it seven out of ten.

Teradata is a great, industry-leading data warehousing product that has MPP architecture. In recent times, there have been many other products available in the cloud space. It has a lot of other features like linear scalability and unconditional parallelism.

Teradata hardly supports unstructured data or semi-structured data. Teradata is very costly, and it's not easy to upgrade or expand the components in Teradata. A lot of infrastructure needs to be set up in order to use Teradata.

I have been using Teradata for more than 15 years.

Teradata is a very expensive solution.

Many other products equivalent to Teradata are available in the market, like BigQuery, Redshift, and Snowflake.

Teradata is a suitable solution for small customers.

Overall, I rate Teradata an eight out of ten.

Our use cases are all about data ingestion, data manipulation, and data exploration. It's the core database for us.

It's the same as your visual database. I like the fast load feature for data, BTQ nd storage procedures are very good. They can avoid table locking, which is very good.

Sometimes the large ingestion jobs takes days to load data, and some of our stored procedures take longer. I don't know whether it's the tool or the network, but it takes a long time to execute complex commands.

I've been using this solution for around five years Now. We currently use the latest version.

It is a stable solution. I would rate the stability a nine out of ten.

I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. It is scalable.

There are more than 100 users currently using Teradata in our organization.

The customer service and support are good. But they take a long time to respond.

So there is room for improvement in response time.

It's a very straightforward installation process. It's good in terms of installation.

The solution requires maintenance. Our team of ten engineers manage and maintain the solution.

It is yearly basis. The licensing is based on a contract. It's a very expensive product.

I would rate the pricing model a three out of ten, where one is very expensive and not cost-effective, and then ten is a very cheap product. The solution is fairly expensive.

Overall, if I consider the expense, features, and everything, then I would rate the solution a six out of ten.