DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. CouchDB vs. Firebolt

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. CouchDB vs. Firebolt

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

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

A native JSON - document store inspired by Lotus Notes, scalable from globally distributed server-clusters down to mobile phones.

Highly scalable cloud data warehouse and analytics product

Forked from Clickhouse

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Document store
Key-value store

Document store

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Spatial DBMS

using the Geocouch extension

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

Score	17.94
Rank	#34	Overall
	#21	Relational DBMS

Score	9.30
Rank	#45	Overall
	#7	Document stores

Score	1.90
Rank	#134	Overall
	#62	Relational DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

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

couchdb.apache.org

www.firebolt.io

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

docs.couchdb.org/en/stable

docs.firebolt.io

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

Atos Convergence Creators

Apache Software Foundation

Apache top-level project, originally developed by Damien Katz, a former Lotus Notes developer

Firebolt Analytics Inc.

Initial release

2012

2016

2005

2020

Current release

1703

3.3.3, December 2023

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

Java

Erlang

Server operating systems

hosted

Linux

Android
BSD
Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

hosted

Data scheme

yes

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

schema-free

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

optional

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.

yes

Secondary indexes

restricted

yes

via views

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

does not fully support an SQL-standard

yes

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

LDAP

RESTful HTTP/JSON API

.Net
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

All languages with LDAP bindings

C
C#
ColdFusion
Erlang
Haskell
Java
JavaScript
Lisp
Lua
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
PL/SQL
Python
Ruby
Smalltalk

Go
JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

View functions in JavaScript

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

Sharding

improved architecture with release 2.0

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

depending on storage layer

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

Eventual 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

Atomic execution of specific operations

atomic operations within a single document possible

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

strategy: optimistic locking

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

LDAP bind authentication

Access rights for users can be defined per database

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.