DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. BigObject vs. Brytlyt vs. CockroachDB

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. BigObject vs. Brytlyt vs. CockroachDB

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

Analytic DBMS for real-time computations and queries

Scalable GPU-accelerated RDBMS for very fast analytic and streaming workloads, leveraging PostgreSQL

CockroachDB is a distributed database architected for modern cloud applications. It is wire compatible with PostgreSQL and backed by a Key-Value Store, which is either RocksDB or a purpose-built derivative, called Pebble.

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

a hierachical model (tree) can be imposed

Relational DBMS

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

Score	17.94
Rank	#34	Overall
	#21	Relational DBMS

Score	0.13
Rank	#333	Overall
	#147	Relational DBMS

Score	0.29
Rank	#288	Overall
	#131	Relational DBMS

Score	6.15
Rank	#55	Overall
	#33	Relational DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

bigobject.io

brytlyt.io

www.cockroachlabs.com

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

docs.bigobject.io

docs.brytlyt.io

www.cockroachlabs.com/docs

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

BigObject, Inc.

Brytlyt

Cockroach Labs

Initial release

2012

2015

2016

2015

Current release

5.0, August 2023

23.1.1, May 2023

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free community edition available

commercial

Open Source

Apache 2.0, commercial license 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, C++ and CUDA

Server operating systems

hosted

Linux

distributed as a docker-image
OS X

distributed as a docker-image (boot2docker)
Windows

distributed as a docker-image (boot2docker)

Linux
OS X
Windows

Linux
macOS
Windows

Data scheme

yes

dynamic schema

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

specific XML-type available, but no XML query functionality.

Secondary indexes

restricted

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

does not fully support an SQL-standard

SQL-like DML and DDL statements

yes

yes, wire compatible with PostgreSQL

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

fluentd
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET
JDBC
native C library
ODBC
streaming API for large objects

JDBC

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

.Net
C
C++
Delphi
Java
Perl
Python
Tcl

C#
C++
Clojure
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
Ruby
Rust

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

Lua

user defined functions

in PL/pgSQL

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

none

horizontal partitioning (by key range)

all tables are translated to an ordered KV store and then broken down into 64MB ranges, which are then used as replicas in RAFT

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

none

Source-replica replication

Multi-source replication using RAFT

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

automatically between fact table and dimension tables

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Read/write lock on objects (tables, trees)

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

Role-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.