DBMS > 4D vs. Amazon Redshift vs. Apache Phoenix vs. TigerGraph

System Properties Comparison 4D vs. Amazon Redshift vs. Apache Phoenix vs. TigerGraph

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

Application development environment with integrated database management system

Large scale data warehouse service for use with business intelligence tools

A scale-out RDBMS with evolutionary schema built on Apache HBase

A complete, distributed, parallel graph computing platform supporting web-scale data analytics in real-time

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Graph DBMS

DB-Engines Ranking measures the popularity of database management systems
Trend Chart

Score	2.58
Rank	#108	Overall
	#54	Relational DBMS

Score	17.94
Rank	#34	Overall
	#21	Relational DBMS

Score	1.97
Rank	#126	Overall
	#59	Relational DBMS

Score	1.83
Rank	#139	Overall
	#13	Graph DBMS

Website

www.4d.com

aws.amazon.com/redshift

phoenix.apache.org

www.tigergraph.com

Technical documentation

developer.4d.com

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

phoenix.apache.org

docs.tigergraph.com

Developer

4D, Inc

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

Apache Software Foundation

Initial release

1984

2012

2014

2017

Current release

v20, April 2023

5.0-HBase2, July 2018 and 4.15-HBase1, December 2019

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0

commercial

Cloud-based only

Only available as a cloud service

yes

DBaaS offerings (sponsored links)

Database as a Service

Providers of DBaaS offerings, please contact us to be listed.

Implementation language

Java

C++

Server operating systems

OS X
Windows

hosted

Linux
Unix
Windows

Linux

Data scheme

yes

late-bound, schema-on-read capabilities

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

XML support

Some form of processing data in XML format, e.g. support for XML data structures, and/or support for XPath, XQuery or XSLT.

yes

Secondary indexes

yes

restricted

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

close to SQL 92

yes

does not fully support an SQL-standard

yes

SQL-like query language (GSQL)

APIs and other access methods

ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

by using 4D Mobile
SOAP webservices

JDBC
ODBC

JDBC

GSQL (TigerGraph Query Language)
Kafka
RESTful HTTP/JSON API

Supported programming languages

4D proprietary IDE
PHP

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

C
C#
C++
Go
Groovy
Java
PHP
Python
Scala

C++
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

user defined functions

in Python

user defined functions

yes

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Multi-source replication

yes

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Hadoop integration

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

informational only, not enforced by the system

yes

Relationships in graphs

Transaction concepts

Support to ensure data integrity after non-atomic manipulations of data

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

In-memory capabilities

Is there an option to define some or all structures to be held in-memory only.

yes

User concepts

Access control

Users and groups

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

Access Control Lists (using HBase ACL) for RBAC, integration with Apache Ranger for RBAC & ABAC, multi-tenancy

Role-based access control

More information provided by the system vendor

We invite representatives of system vendors to contact us for updating and extending the system information,
and for displaying vendor-provided information such as key customers, competitive advantages and market metrics.