DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Dragonfly vs. MaxDB

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Dragonfly vs. MaxDB

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 drop-in Redis replacement that scales vertically to support millions of operations per second and terabyte sized workloads, all on a single instance

A robust and reliable RDBMS optimized to run all major SAP solutions

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Document store
Key-value store

Key-value store

Relational DBMS

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

Score	17.94
Rank	#34	Overall
	#21	Relational DBMS

Score	0.41
Rank	#266	Overall
	#38	Key-value stores

Score	2.32
Rank	#112	Overall
	#55	Relational DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

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

github.com/dragonflydb/dragonfly
www.dragonflydb.io

maxdb.sap.com

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

www.dragonflydb.io/docs

maxdb.sap.com/documentation

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

Atos Convergence Creators

DragonflyDB team and community contributors

SAP, acquired from Software AG (Adabas-D) in 1997

Initial release

2012

2016

2023

1984

Current release

1703

1.0, March 2023

7.9.10.12, February 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

BSL 1.1

commercial

Limited community edition free

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

AIX
HP-UX
Linux
Solaris
Windows

Data scheme

yes

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

scheme-free

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

optional

strings, hashes, lists, sets, sorted sets, bit arrays

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

yes

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

LDAP

Proprietary protocol

RESP - REdis Serialization Protocol

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
WebDAV

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

All languages with LDAP bindings

C
C#
C++
Clojure
D
Dart
Elixir
Erlang
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Lisp
Lua
Objective-C
Perl
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Rust
Scala
Swift
Tcl

.Net
C#
Java
Perl
PHP
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

Lua

yes

Triggers

yes

publish/subscribe channels provide some trigger functionality

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

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

Atomic execution of specific operations

Atomic execution of command blocks and scripts

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

yes, strict serializability by the server

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

Password-based authentication

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

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.