DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Ehcache vs. SiriDB vs. Transbase

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Ehcache vs. SiriDB vs. Transbase

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 widely adopted Java cache with tiered storage options

Open Source Time Series DBMS

A resource-optimized, high-performance, universally applicable RDBMS

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Document store
Key-value store

Key-value store

Time Series DBMS

Relational DBMS

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

Score	17.94
Rank	#34	Overall
	#21	Relational DBMS

Score	4.89
Rank	#67	Overall
	#8	Key-value stores

Score	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#41	Time Series DBMS

Score	0.11
Rank	#341	Overall
	#150	Relational DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

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

www.ehcache.org

siridb.com

www.transaction.de/en/products/transbase.html

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

www.ehcache.org/documentation

docs.siridb.com

www.transaction.de/en/products/transbase/features.html

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

Atos Convergence Creators

Terracotta Inc, owned by Software AG

Cesbit

Transaction Software GmbH

Initial release

2012

2016

2009

2017

1987

Current release

1703

3.10.0, March 2022

Transbase 8.3, 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache Version 2; commercial licenses available

Open Source

MIT License

commercial

free development license

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 and C++

Server operating systems

hosted

Linux

All OS with a Java VM

Linux

FreeBSD
Linux
macOS
Solaris
Windows

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

Numeric data

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

JCache

HTTP API

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
Proprietary native API

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

All languages with LDAP bindings

Java

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

C
C#
C++
Java
JavaScript
Kotlin
Objective-C
PHP
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

yes

Triggers

yes

Cache Event Listeners

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

Sharding

by using Terracotta Server

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

by using Terracotta Server

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

Tunable Consistency (Strong, Eventual, Weak)

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

yes

supports JTA and can work as an XA resource

yes

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

using a tiered cache-storage approach

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

simple rights management via user accounts

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.