DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Coveo vs. RavenDB

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Coveo vs. RavenDB

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

AI-powered hosted search, recommendation and personalization platform providing tools for both low-code and full-code development

Open Source Operational and Transactional Enterprise NoSQL Document Database

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Document store
Key-value store

Search engine

Document store

Secondary database models

Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS
Time Series DBMS

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

Score	16.88
Rank	#35	Overall
	#22	Relational DBMS

Score	2.11
Rank	#118	Overall
	#11	Search engines

Score	2.84
Rank	#101	Overall
	#18	Document stores

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

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

www.coveo.com

ravendb.net

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

docs.coveo.com

ravendb.net/docs

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

Atos Convergence Creators

Coveo

Hibernating Rhinos

Initial release

2012

2016

2012

2010

Current release

1703

5.4, July 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

AGPL version 3, commercial license available

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

Server operating systems

hosted

Linux

hosted

Linux
macOS
Raspberry Pi
Windows

Data scheme

yes

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

hybrid - fields need to be configured prior to indexing, but relationships can be exploited at query time without pre-configuration

schema-free

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

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

does not fully support an SQL-standard

SQL-like query language (RQL)

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

LDAP

RESTful HTTP API

.NET Client API
F# Client API
Go Client API
Java Client API
NodeJS Client API
PHP Client API
Python Client API
RESTful HTTP API

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

All languages with LDAP bindings

C#
Java
JavaScript
Python

.Net
C#
F#
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
Ruby

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

yes

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

yes

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Multi-source replication

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

Immediate Consistency

Default ACID transactions on the local node (eventually consistent across the cluster). Atomic operations with cluster-wide ACID transactions. Eventual consistency for indexes and full-text search indexes.

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

Atomic execution of specific operations

yes

ACID, Cluster-wide transaction available

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

LDAP bind authentication

granular access controls, API key management, content filters

Authorization levels configured per client 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.