DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. Apache Impala vs. Atos Standard Common Repository

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. Apache Impala vs. Atos Standard Common Repository

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

This system has been discontinued and will be removed from the DB-Engines ranking.

Description

Large scale data warehouse service for use with business intelligence tools

Analytic DBMS for Hadoop

Highly scalable database system, designed for managing session and subscriber data in modern mobile communication networks

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Document store
Key-value store

Secondary database models

Document store

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

Score	17.94
Rank	#34	Overall
	#21	Relational DBMS

Score	13.77
Rank	#40	Overall
	#24	Relational DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

impala.apache.org

atos.net/en/convergence-creators/portfolio/standard-common-repository

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

impala.apache.org/impala-docs.html

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

Apache Software Foundation

Apache top-level project, originally developed by Cloudera

Atos Convergence Creators

Initial release

2012

2013

2016

Current release

4.1.0, June 2022

1703

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache Version 2

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++

Java

Server operating systems

hosted

Linux

Data scheme

yes

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

optional

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

restricted

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

does not fully support an SQL-standard

SQL-like DML and DDL statements

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

LDAP

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

All languages with LDAP bindings

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

yes

user defined functions and integration of map-reduce

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

selectable replication factor

yes

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

query execution via MapReduce

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Eventual Consistency

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

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

Atomic execution of specific operations

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

LDAP bind authentication

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.