DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. AnzoGraph DB vs. EJDB vs. JaguarDB

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. AnzoGraph DB vs. EJDB vs. JaguarDB

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

Embeddable document-store database library with JSON representation of queries (in MongoDB style)

Performant, highly scalable DBMS for AI and IoT applications

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Graph DBMS
RDF store

Document store

Key-value store
Vector DBMS

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

Score	17.94
Rank	#34	Overall
	#21	Relational DBMS

Score	0.23
Rank	#307	Overall
	#24	Graph DBMS
	#13	RDF stores

Score	0.27
Rank	#297	Overall
	#44	Document stores

Score	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#60	Key-value stores
	#13	Vector DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

cambridgesemantics.com/anzograph

github.com/Softmotions/ejdb

www.jaguardb.com

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

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

github.com/Softmotions/ejdb/blob/master/README.md

www.jaguardb.com/support.html

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

Cambridge Semantics

Softmotions

DataJaguar, Inc.

Initial release

2012

2018

2012

2015

Current release

2.3, January 2021

3.3 July 2023

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free trial version available

Open Source

GPLv2

Open Source

GPL V3.0

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++

the server part. Clients available in other languages

Server operating systems

hosted

Linux

server-less

Linux

Data scheme

yes

Schema-free and OWL/RDFS-schema support

schema-free

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

string, integer, double, bool, date, object_id

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.

A subset of ANSI SQL is implemented

but no views, foreign keys, triggers

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

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

in-process shared library

JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

C++
Java
Python

Actionscript
C
C#
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Lua
Objective-C
Pike
Python
Ruby

C
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scala

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

user defined functions and aggregates

Triggers

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

Automatic sharding

none

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Multi-source replication in MPP-Cluster

none

Multi-source 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

Eventual Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

informational only, not enforced by the system

not needed in graphs

typically not needed, however similar functionality with collection joins possible

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Read/Write Locking

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

rights management via user accounts

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.