DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. IBM Cloudant vs. JanusGraph

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. IBM Cloudant vs. JanusGraph

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

Database as a Service offering based on Apache CouchDB

A Graph DBMS optimized for distributed clusters

It was forked from the latest code base of Titan in January 2017

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Document store
Key-value store

Document store

Graph DBMS

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

Score	16.88
Rank	#35	Overall
	#22	Relational DBMS

Score	2.75
Rank	#104	Overall
	#19	Document stores

Score	2.02
Rank	#125	Overall
	#12	Graph DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

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

www.ibm.com/products/cloudant

janusgraph.org

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

cloud.ibm.com/docs/Cloudant

docs.janusgraph.org

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

Atos Convergence Creators

IBM, Apache Software Foundation

IBM acquired Cloudant in February 2014

Linux Foundation; originally developed as Titan by Aurelius

Initial release

2012

2016

2010

2017

Current release

1703

0.6.3, February 2023

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache 2.0

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

Java

Server operating systems

hosted

Linux

hosted

Linux
OS X
Unix
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

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

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

LDAP

RESTful HTTP/JSON API

Java API
TinkerPop Blueprints
TinkerPop Frames
TinkerPop Gremlin
TinkerPop Rexster

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

All languages with LDAP bindings

C#
Java
JavaScript
Objective-C
PHP
Ruby

Clojure
Java
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

View functions (Map-Reduce) in JavaScript

yes

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

Sharding

yes

depending on the used storage backend (e.g. Cassandra, HBase, BerkeleyDB)

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

yes

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

via Faunus, a graph analytics engine

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

Eventual Consistency

Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

informational only, not enforced by the system

yes

Relationships in graphs

Transaction concepts

Support to ensure data integrity after non-atomic manipulations of data

ACID

Atomic execution of specific operations

atomic operations within a document possible

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Optimistic locking

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

Supports various storage backends: Cassandra, HBase, Berkeley DB, Akiban, Hazelcast

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

User authentification and security via Rexster Graph Server

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.