DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. BigObject vs. CrateDB vs. FatDB

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. BigObject vs. CrateDB vs. FatDB

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

FatDB/FatCloud has ceased operations as a company with February 2014. FatDB is discontinued and excluded from the ranking.

Description

Large scale data warehouse service for use with business intelligence tools

Analytic DBMS for real-time computations and queries

Distributed Database based on Lucene

A .NET NoSQL DBMS that can integrate with and extend SQL Server.

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

a hierachical model (tree) can be imposed

Document store
Spatial DBMS
Search engine
Time Series DBMS
Vector DBMS

Document store
Key-value store

Secondary database models

Relational 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	0.71
Rank	#227	Overall
	#37	Document stores
	#5	Spatial DBMS
	#16	Search engines
	#19	Time Series DBMS
	#10	Vector DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

bigobject.io

cratedb.com

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

docs.bigobject.io

cratedb.com/docs

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

BigObject, Inc.

Crate

FatCloud

Initial release

2012

2015

2013

2012

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free community edition available

Open Source

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

distributed as a docker-image
OS X

distributed as a docker-image (boot2docker)
Windows

distributed as a docker-image (boot2docker)

All Operating Systems, including Kubernetes with CrateDB Kubernetes Operator support

Windows

Data scheme

yes

Flexible Schema (defined schema, partial schema, schema free)

schema-free

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

SQL-like DML and DDL statements

yes, but no triggers and constraints, and PostgreSQL compatibility

Via inetgration in SQL Server

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

fluentd
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
PostgreSQL wire protocol
Prometheus Remote Read/Write
RESTful HTTP API

.NET Client API
LINQ
RESTful HTTP API
RPC
Windows WCF Bindings

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

.NET
Erlang
Go

community maintained client
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)

community maintained client
Perl

community maintained client
PHP
Python
R
Ruby

community maintained client
Scala

community maintained client

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

Lua

user defined functions (Javascript)

yes

via applications

Triggers

yes

via applications

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

none

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

none

Configurable replication on table/partition-level

selectable replication factor

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

none

Eventual Consistency
Read-after-write consistency on record level

Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

informational only, not enforced by the system

yes

automatically between fact table and dimension tables

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

unique row identifiers can be used for implementing an optimistic concurrency control strategy

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

rights management via user accounts

Can implement custom security layer via applications

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.