A step-by-step guide to deciding when MySQL is the better database for your workload compared with Amazon Redshift.
Choose MySQL when your application needs sub-second, row-level writes and reads. MySQL’s B-Tree indexes and MVCC make single-record lookups lightning fast, ideal for order processing or user sessions in an ecommerce site.
Redshift’s MPP clusters shine at multi-terabyte analytics but carry hourly node costs.For datasets under 500 GB and steady traffic, MySQL’s open-source or RDS pricing is significantly cheaper—no idle cluster fees.
MySQL handles hundreds of short OLTP connections gracefully. Redshift’s WLM caps concurrency (5–50 slots) and queues additional queries, which can frustrate transactional apps.
If you already use MySQL for transactional data, keeping analytics in the same engine removes ETL overhead and schema drift.MySQL 8.0 supports window functions and CTEs, closing many analytic gaps.
MySQL enforces foreign keys and cascades in InnoDB. Redshift skips FK enforcement to speed loads, so you must maintain data quality yourself. For strict integrity, MySQL wins.
Use read replicas, partitioning, and proxy-based sharding. For example, shard Orders
by customer_id % 4
across four MySQL primaries, then aggregate in a replica.This suits write-heavy, moderate-size workloads.
Keep OLTP in MySQL and copy only large fact tables to Redshift for deep analytics. Use AWS DMS for near-real-time replication, giving you the best of both engines.
.
Yes. MySQL 8.0 supports window functions, CTEs, and JSON handling, making mid-scale analytics feasible without Redshift.
Absolutely. Use AWS DMS or Debezium to stream binlog changes into Redshift when your data exceeds MySQL’s sweet spot.
No. Redshift is column-oriented and optimized for batch analytics, not row-level ACID transactions required by most applications.