DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. AnzoGraph DB vs. BigObject vs. Brytlyt

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. AnzoGraph DB vs. BigObject vs. Brytlyt

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

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

Analytic DBMS for real-time computations and queries

Scalable GPU-accelerated RDBMS for very fast analytic and streaming workloads, leveraging PostgreSQL

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Graph DBMS
RDF store

Relational DBMS

a hierachical model (tree) can be imposed

Relational DBMS

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

Score	19.03
Rank	#34	Overall
	#21	Relational DBMS

Score	0.27
Rank	#302	Overall
	#24	Graph DBMS
	#13	RDF stores

Score	0.13
Rank	#342	Overall
	#150	Relational DBMS

Score	0.38
Rank	#279	Overall
	#126	Relational DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

cambridgesemantics.com/anzograph

bigobject.io

brytlyt.io

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

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

docs.bigobject.io

docs.brytlyt.io

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

Cambridge Semantics

BigObject, Inc.

Brytlyt

Initial release

2012

2018

2015

2016

Current release

2.3, January 2021

5.0, August 2023

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free trial version available

commercial

free community edition available

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

C, C++ and CUDA

Server operating systems

hosted

Linux

distributed as a docker-image
OS X

distributed as a docker-image (boot2docker)
Windows

distributed as a docker-image (boot2docker)

Linux
OS X
Windows

Data scheme

yes

Schema-free and OWL/RDFS-schema support

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

specific XML-type available, but no XML query functionality.

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.

SQL-like DML and DDL statements

yes

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

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

fluentd
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET
JDBC
native C library
ODBC
streaming API for large objects

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

C++
Java
Python

.Net
C
C++
Delphi
Java
Perl
Python
Tcl

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

user defined functions and aggregates

Lua

user defined functions

in PL/pgSQL

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

Automatic sharding

none

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

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Immediate Consistency in MPP-Cluster

none

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

informational only, not enforced by the system

not needed in graphs

yes

automatically between fact table and dimension tables

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Read/write lock on objects (tables, trees)

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

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.