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

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. Apache Impala vs. CockroachDB 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

CockroachDB is a distributed database architected for modern cloud applications. It is wire compatible with PostgreSQL and backed by a Key-Value Store, which is either RocksDB or a purpose-built derivative, called Pebble.

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

Primary database model

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	6.10
Rank	#58	Overall
	#33	Relational DBMS

Score	1.00
Rank	#193	Overall
	#90	Relational DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

impala.apache.org

www.cockroachlabs.com

ignitetech.com/softwarelibrary/infobrightdb

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

impala.apache.org/impala-docs.html

www.cockroachlabs.com/docs

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

Apache Software Foundation

Apache top-level project, originally developed by Cloudera

Cockroach Labs

Ignite Technologies Inc.; formerly InfoBright Inc.

Initial release

2012

2013

2015

2005

Current release

4.1.0, June 2022

23.1.1, May 2023

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache Version 2

Open Source

Apache 2.0, commercial license available

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++

Server operating systems

hosted

Linux

Linux
macOS
Windows

Linux
Windows

Data scheme

yes

dynamic schema

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, wire compatible with PostgreSQL

yes

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

JDBC

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

C#
C++
Clojure
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
Ruby
Rust

.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

Triggers

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

horizontal partitioning (by key range)

all tables are translated to an ordered KV store and then broken down into 64MB ranges, which are then used as replicas in RAFT

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

selectable replication factor

Multi-source replication using RAFT

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

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

informational only, not enforced by the system

yes

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

Role-based access control

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.