DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. Apache Impala vs. BigObject vs. Infobright vs. Transwarp StellarDB

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. Apache Impala vs. BigObject vs. Infobright vs. Transwarp StellarDB

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

Large scale data warehouse service for use with business intelligence tools

Analytic DBMS for Hadoop

Analytic DBMS for real-time computations and queries

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

A distributed graph DBMS built for enterprise-level graph applications

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

a hierachical model (tree) can be imposed

Relational DBMS

Graph DBMS

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

Score	0.13
Rank	#333	Overall
	#147	Relational DBMS

Score	0.96
Rank	#194	Overall
	#91	Relational DBMS

Score	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#39	Graph DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

impala.apache.org

bigobject.io

ignitetech.com/softwarelibrary/infobrightdb

www.transwarp.cn/en/product/stellardb

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

impala.apache.org/impala-docs.html

docs.bigobject.io

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

Apache Software Foundation

Apache top-level project, originally developed by Cloudera

BigObject, Inc.

Ignite Technologies Inc.; formerly InfoBright Inc.

Transwarp

Initial release

2012

2013

2015

2005

Current release

4.1.0, June 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache Version 2

commercial

free community edition available

commercial

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

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++

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
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

yes

SQL-like query language

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

fluentd
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

OpenCypher

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

.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

Lua

Triggers

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

none

horizontal partitioning

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

selectable replication factor

none

Source-replica replication

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

none

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

informational only, not enforced by the system

yes

automatically between fact table and dimension tables

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, groups and roles

based on Apache Sentry and Kerberos

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

exploiting MySQL or PostgreSQL frontend capabilities

yes

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.