DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. etcd vs. SiteWhere vs. Ultipa

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. etcd vs. SiteWhere vs. Ultipa

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 distributed reliable key-value store

M2M integration platform for persisting/querying time series data

High performance Graph DBMS supporting HTAP high availability cluster deployment

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Document store
Key-value store

Key-value store

Time Series DBMS

Graph DBMS

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

Score	17.94
Rank	#34	Overall
	#21	Relational DBMS

Score	7.25
Rank	#54	Overall
	#5	Key-value stores

Score	0.06
Rank	#356	Overall
	#35	Time Series DBMS

Score	0.13
Rank	#335	Overall
	#31	Graph DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

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

etcd.io
github.com/etcd-io/etcd

github.com/sitewhere/sitewhere

www.ultipa.com

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

etcd.io/docs
github.com/etcd-io/etcd/tree/master/Documentation

sitewhere1.sitewhere.io/index.html

www.ultipa.com/document

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

Atos Convergence Creators

SiteWhere

Ultipa

Initial release

2012

2016

2010

2019

Current release

1703

3.4, August 2019

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0

Open Source

Common Public Attribution License Version 1.0

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

Server operating systems

hosted

Linux

FreeBSD
Linux
Windows

experimental

Linux
OS X
Windows

Data scheme

yes

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

schema-free

predefined scheme

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

gRPC
JSON over HTTP

HTTP REST

RESTful HTTP API

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

All languages with LDAP bindings

.Net
C
C++
Clojure
Erlang
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Perl
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Rust
Scala
Tcl

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

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

Triggers

yes

yes, watching key changes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

Sharding

based on HBase

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Using Raft consensus algorithm to ensure data replication with strong consistency among multiple replicas.

selectable replication factor

based on HBase

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

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

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

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

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.