DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. BigObject vs. Drizzle vs. TimesTen

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. BigObject vs. Drizzle vs. TimesTen

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Drizzle has published its last release in September 2012. The open-source project is discontinued and Drizzle is excluded from the DB-Engines ranking.

Description

Large scale data warehouse service for use with business intelligence tools

Analytic DBMS for real-time computations and queries

MySQL fork with a pluggable micro-kernel and with an emphasis of performance over compatibility.

An in-memory SQL relational database that delivers microsecond response and high throughput for OLTP applications. TimesTen can be deployed as a standalone database or as a cache to a backend Oracle database.

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	15.25
Rank	#38	Overall
	#23	Relational DBMS

Score	0.13
Rank	#329	Overall
	#147	Relational DBMS

Score	1.26
Rank	#164	Overall
	#75	Relational DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

bigobject.io

www.oracle.com/database/technologies/related/timesten.html

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

docs.bigobject.io

docs.oracle.com/en/database/other-databases/timesten/index.html

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

BigObject, Inc.

Drizzle project, originally started by Brian Aker

Oracle

originally founded in HP Labs it was acquired by Oracle in 2005

Initial release

2012

2015

2008

1998

Current release

7.2.4, September 2012

Release 22.1

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free community edition available

Open Source

GNU GPL

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)

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X

IBM AIX Power PC 64-bit
Linux arm64
Linux x86-64
Solaris SPARC 64
Solaris SPARC/x86
Solaris x86-64

Data scheme

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.

Secondary indexes

restricted

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

does not fully support an SQL-standard

SQL-like DML and DDL statements

yes

with proprietary extensions

yes

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

fluentd
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

JDBC

ODBC
ODP.NET
Oracle Call Interface (OCI)
Pro*C/C++ programming interfaces
SQL and PL/SQL via JDBC

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

C
C++
Java
PHP

C
C++
Java
Node.js
PL/SQL
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

Lua

PL/SQL

Triggers

hooks for callbacks inside the server can be used.

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

none

Sharding

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

none

Multi-source replication
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 or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

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

by means of logfiles and checkpoints

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

Pluggable authentication mechanisms

e.g. LDAP, HTTP

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.