DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. Apache Impala vs. Apache IoTDB vs. Infobright

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. Apache Impala vs. Apache IoTDB vs. Infobright

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

Analytic DBMS for Hadoop

An IoT native database with high performance for data management and analysis, deployable on the edge and the cloud and integrated with Hadoop, Spark and Flink

High performant column-oriented DBMS for analytic workloads using MySQL or PostgreSQL as a frontend

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Time Series DBMS

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store

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

Score	19.03
Rank	#34	Overall
	#21	Relational DBMS

Score	14.03
Rank	#40	Overall
	#24	Relational DBMS

Score	1.19
Rank	#176	Overall
	#15	Time Series DBMS

Score	1.00
Rank	#193	Overall
	#90	Relational DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

impala.apache.org

iotdb.apache.org

ignitetech.com/softwarelibrary/infobrightdb

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

impala.apache.org/impala-docs.html

iotdb.apache.org/UserGuide/Master/QuickStart/QuickStart.html

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

Apache Software Foundation

Apache top-level project, originally developed by Cloudera

Apache Software Foundation

Ignite Technologies Inc.; formerly InfoBright Inc.

Initial release

2012

2013

2018

2005

Current release

4.1.0, June 2022

1.1.0, April 2023

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache Version 2

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0

commercial

The open source (GPLv2) version did not support inserts/updates/deletes and was discontinued with July 2016

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++

Java

Server operating systems

hosted

Linux

All OS with a Java VM (>= 1.8)

Linux
Windows

Data scheme

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.

Secondary indexes

restricted

yes

Knowledge Grid Technology used instead

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

does not fully support an SQL-standard

SQL-like DML and DDL statements

SQL-like query language

yes

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

JDBC
Native API

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

C
C#
C++
Go
Java
Python
Scala

.Net
C
C#
C++
D
Eiffel
Erlang
Haskell
Java
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scheme
Tcl

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

yes

user defined functions and integration of map-reduce

yes

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

horizontal partitioning (by time range) + vertical partitioning (by deviceId)

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

selectable replication factor

selectable replication methods; using Raft/IoTConsensus algorithm to ensure strong/eventual data consistency among multiple replicas

Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

query execution via MapReduce

Integration with Hadoop and Spark

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Eventual Consistency

Eventual Consistency
Strong Consistency with Raft

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

informational only, not enforced by the system

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, groups and roles

based on Apache Sentry and Kerberos

yes

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

exploiting MySQL or PostgreSQL frontend capabilities

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.