DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. BigObject vs. Dragonfly vs. FileMaker

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. BigObject vs. Dragonfly vs. FileMaker

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

A drop-in Redis replacement that scales vertically to support millions of operations per second and terabyte sized workloads, all on a single instance

FileMaker is a cross-platform RDBMS that includes a GUI frontend.

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

a hierachical model (tree) can be imposed

Key-value store

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	0.41
Rank	#266	Overall
	#38	Key-value stores

Score	48.20
Rank	#20	Overall
	#14	Relational DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

bigobject.io

github.com/dragonflydb/dragonfly
www.dragonflydb.io

www.claris.com/filemaker

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

docs.bigobject.io

www.dragonflydb.io/docs

www.claris.com/resources/documentation

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

BigObject, Inc.

DragonflyDB team and community contributors

Claris

a subsidiary of Apple

Initial release

2012

2015

2023

1983

Current release

1.0, March 2023

19.4.1, November 2021

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free community edition available

Open Source

BSL 1.1

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

Linux

distributed as a docker-image
OS X

distributed as a docker-image (boot2docker)
Windows

distributed as a docker-image (boot2docker)

Linux

iOS

client part only
Linux
OS X
Windows

Data scheme

yes

scheme-free

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

strings, hashes, lists, sets, sorted sets, bit arrays

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

A http query request can return the data in XML format

Secondary indexes

restricted

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

does not fully support an SQL-standard

SQL-like DML and DDL statements

yes

via plugins

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

fluentd
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

Proprietary protocol

RESP - REdis Serialization Protocol

Filemaker WebDirect
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

C
C#
C++
Clojure
D
Dart
Elixir
Erlang
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Lisp
Lua
Objective-C
Perl
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Rust
Scala
Swift
Tcl

PHP

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

Lua

yes

Triggers

publish/subscribe channels provide some trigger functionality

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

none

Source-replica replication

Source-replica replication, warm standby

since Version 14

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

none

Eventual 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

Atomic execution of command blocks and scripts

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Read/write lock on objects (tables, trees)

yes, strict serializability by the server

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

Password-based authentication

simple rights management via user accounts and connection to external directory services

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.