DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. Badger vs. HEAVY.AI vs. Machbase Neo

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. Badger vs. HEAVY.AI vs. Machbase Neo

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

Large scale data warehouse service for use with business intelligence tools

An embeddable, persistent, simple and fast Key-Value Store, written purely in Go.

A high performance, column-oriented RDBMS, specifically developed to harness the massive parallelism of modern CPU and GPU hardware

TimeSeries DBMS for AIoT and BigData

Primary database model

Secondary database models

Spatial DBMS

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

Score	17.94
Rank	#34	Overall
	#21	Relational DBMS

Score	0.14
Rank	#331	Overall
	#49	Key-value stores

Score	1.77
Rank	#141	Overall
	#65	Relational DBMS

Score	0.12
Rank	#339	Overall
	#30	Time Series DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

github.com/dgraph-io/badger

github.com/heavyai/heavydb
www.heavy.ai

machbase.com

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

godoc.org/github.com/dgraph-io/badger

docs.heavy.ai

machbase.com/dbms

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

DGraph Labs

HEAVY.AI, Inc.

Machbase

Initial release

2012

2017

2016

2013

Current release

5.10, January 2022

V8.0, August 2023

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache 2.0

Open Source

Apache Version 2; enterprise edition available

commercial

free test version available

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

C++ and CUDA

Server operating systems

hosted

BSD
Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

Linux

Linux
macOS
Windows

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

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.

Secondary indexes

restricted

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

does not fully support an SQL-standard

yes

SQL-like query language

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

JDBC
ODBC
Thrift
Vega

gRPC
HTTP REST
JDBC
MQTT (Message Queue Telemetry Transport)
ODBC

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC/Thrift
Python

C
C#
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript
PHP

via ODBC
Python
R

via ODBC
Scala

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

Triggers

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

none

Sharding

Round robin

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

none

Multi-source replication

selectable replication factor

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

none

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

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

volatile and lookup table

User concepts

Access control

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

simple password-based access control

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.