DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. BigObject vs. Coveo vs. SiriDB

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. BigObject vs. Coveo vs. SiriDB

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

AI-powered hosted search, recommendation and personalization platform providing tools for both low-code and full-code development

Open Source Time Series DBMS

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

a hierachical model (tree) can be imposed

Search engine

Time Series DBMS

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

Score	16.88
Rank	#35	Overall
	#22	Relational DBMS

Score	0.19
Rank	#329	Overall
	#146	Relational DBMS

Score	2.11
Rank	#118	Overall
	#11	Search engines

Score	0.07
Rank	#378	Overall
	#42	Time Series DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

bigobject.io

www.coveo.com

siridb.com

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

docs.bigobject.io

docs.coveo.com

docs.siridb.com

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

BigObject, Inc.

Coveo

Cesbit

Initial release

2012

2015

2012

2017

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free community edition available

commercial

Open Source

MIT License

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

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)

hosted

Linux

Data scheme

yes

hybrid - fields need to be configured prior to indexing, but relationships can be exploited at query time without pre-configuration

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

Numeric data

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

SQL-like DML and DDL statements

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

fluentd
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

RESTful HTTP API

HTTP API

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

C#
Java
JavaScript
Python

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

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

Lua

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

none

yes

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

none

yes

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

yes

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

granular access controls, API key management, content filters

simple rights management via user accounts

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.