DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Dgraph vs. Quasardb vs. VelocityDB

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Dgraph vs. Quasardb vs. VelocityDB

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

Distributed and scalable native Graph DBMS

Distributed, high-performance timeseries database

A .NET Object Database that can be embedded/distributed and extended to a graph data model (VelocityGraph)

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Document store
Key-value store

Graph DBMS

Time Series DBMS

Graph DBMS
Object oriented DBMS

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

Score	16.88
Rank	#35	Overall
	#22	Relational DBMS

Score	1.53
Rank	#152	Overall
	#15	Graph DBMS

Score	0.21
Rank	#322	Overall
	#29	Time Series DBMS

Score	0.11
Rank	#354	Overall
	#37	Graph DBMS
	#15	Object oriented DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

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

dgraph.io

quasar.ai

velocitydb.com

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

dgraph.io/docs

doc.quasar.ai/master

velocitydb.com/UserGuide

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

Atos Convergence Creators

Dgraph Labs, Inc.

quasardb

VelocityDB Inc

Initial release

2012

2016

2009

2011

Current release

1703

3.14.1, January 2024

7.x

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache 2.0

commercial

Free community edition, Non-profit organizations and non-commercial usage are eligible for free licenses

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

C++

Server operating systems

hosted

Linux

Linux
OS X
Windows

BSD
Linux
OS X
Windows

Any that supports .NET

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

integer and binary

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

with tags

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

does not fully support an SQL-standard

SQL-like query language

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

LDAP

GraphQL query language
gRPC (using protocol buffers) API
HTTP API

HTTP API

.Net

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

All languages with LDAP bindings

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

.Net
C
C#
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
R

.Net

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

Triggers

yes

Callbacks are triggered when data changes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

yes

Sharding

consistent hashing

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Synchronous replication via Raft

Source-replica replication with selectable replication factor

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

with Hadoop integration

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

Immediate 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

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

by using LevelDB

yes

In-memory capabilities

Is there an option to define some or all structures to be held in-memory only.

yes

Transient mode

yes

User concepts

Access control

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

LDAP bind authentication

Planned for future releases

Cryptographically strong user authentication and audit trail

Based on Windows 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.