DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. Badger vs. Microsoft Azure SQL Database vs. Yaacomo

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. Badger vs. Microsoft Azure SQL Database vs. Yaacomo

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Yaacomo seems to be discontinued and is removed from the DB-Engines ranking

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.

Database as a Service offering with high compatibility to Microsoft SQL Server

OpenCL based in-memory RDBMS, designed for efficiently utilizing the hardware via parallel computing

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
Graph DBMS
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	77.99
Rank	#16	Overall
	#11	Relational DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

github.com/dgraph-io/badger

azure.microsoft.com/en-us/products/azure-sql/database

yaacomo.com

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

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

docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-sql

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

DGraph Labs

Microsoft

Q2WEB GmbH

Initial release

2012

2017

2010

2009

Current release

V12

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache 2.0

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

C++

Server operating systems

hosted

BSD
Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

hosted

Android
Linux
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.

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

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

.Net
C#
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
Ruby

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

Transact SQL

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

none

horizontal partitioning

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

none

yes, with always 3 replicas available

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

none

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

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

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.