DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. AnzoGraph DB vs. Apache Doris vs. Axibase vs. Netezza

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. AnzoGraph DB vs. Apache Doris vs. Axibase vs. Netezza

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

Large scale data warehouse service for use with business intelligence tools

Scalable graph database built for online analytics and data harmonization with MPP scaling, high-performance analytical algorithms and reasoning, and virtualization

An MPP-based analytics DBMS embracing the MySQL protocol

Scalable TimeSeries DBMS based on HBase with integrated rule engine and visualization

Data warehouse and analytics appliance part of IBM PureSystems

Primary database model

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

Score	16.88
Rank	#35	Overall
	#22	Relational DBMS

Score	0.29
Rank	#303	Overall
	#25	Graph DBMS
	#14	RDF stores

Score	0.60
Rank	#247	Overall
	#113	Relational DBMS

Score	0.35
Rank	#282	Overall
	#25	Time Series DBMS

Score	8.59
Rank	#45	Overall
	#29	Relational DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

cambridgesemantics.com/anzograph

doris.apache.org
github.com/apache/doris

axibase.com/docs/atsd/finance

www.ibm.com/products/netezza

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

docs.cambridgesemantics.com/anzograph/userdoc/home.htm

github.com/apache/doris/wiki

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

Cambridge Semantics

Apache Software Foundation, originally contributed from Baidu

Axibase Corporation

IBM

Initial release

2012

2018

2017

2013

2000

Current release

2.3, January 2021

1.2.2, February 2023

15585

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free trial version available

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0

commercial

Community Edition (single node) is free, Enterprise Edition (distributed) is paid

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

Server operating systems

hosted

Linux

included in appliance

Data scheme

yes

Schema-free and OWL/RDFS-schema support

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

short, integer, long, float, double, decimal, string

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.

Secondary indexes

restricted

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

does not fully support an SQL-standard

SPARQL and SPARQL* as primary query language. Cypher preview.

yes

SQL-like query language

yes

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

Apache Mule
gRPC
JDBC
Kafka
OData access for BI tools
OpenCypher
RESTful HTTP API
SPARQL

JDBC
MySQL client

JDBC
Proprietary protocol (Network API)
RESTful HTTP API

JDBC
ODBC
OLE DB

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

C++
Java
Python

Java

Go
Java
PHP
Python
R
Ruby

C
C++
Fortran
Java
Lua
Perl
Python
R

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

user defined functions and aggregates

user defined functions

yes

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

Automatic sharding

horizontal partitioning

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Multi-source replication in MPP-Cluster

none

Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Kerberos/HDFS data loading

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Immediate Consistency in MPP-Cluster

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

informational only, not enforced by the system

not needed 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

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

Access rights for users and roles

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

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.