DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. BigObject vs. HarperDB vs. Linter

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. BigObject vs. HarperDB vs. Linter

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

Ultra-low latency distributed database with an intuitive REST API supporting NoSQL and SQL (including joins). Deployment of functions and databases simultaneously with a consolidated node-level architecture.

RDBMS for high security requirements

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

a hierachical model (tree) can be imposed

Document store

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Spatial 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	0.55
Rank	#248	Overall
	#38	Document stores

Score	0.09
Rank	#346	Overall
	#152	Relational DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

bigobject.io

www.harperdb.io

linter.ru

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

docs.bigobject.io

docs.harperdb.io/docs

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

BigObject, Inc.

HarperDB

relex.ru

Initial release

2012

2015

2017

1990

Current release

3.1, August 2021

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free community edition available

commercial

free community edition available

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

Node.js

C and 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
OS X

AIX
Android
BSD
HP Open VMS
iOS
Linux
OS X
VxWorks
Windows

Data scheme

yes

dynamic schema

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

JSON data types

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

SQL-like data manipulation statements

yes

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

fluentd
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

JDBC
ODBC
React Hooks
RESTful HTTP/JSON API
WebSocket

ADO.NET
JDBC
LINQ
ODBC
OLE DB
Oracle Call Interface (OCI)

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

.Net
C
C#
C++
ColdFusion
D
Dart
Delphi
Erlang
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Lisp
MatLab
Objective C
Perl
PHP
PowerShell
Prolog
Python
R
Ruby
Rust
Scala
Swift

C
C#
C++
Java
Perl
PHP
Python
Qt
Ruby
Tcl

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

Lua

Custom Functions

since release 3.1

yes

proprietary syntax with the possibility to convert from PL/SQL

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

none

A table resides as a whole on one (or more) nodes in a cluster

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

none

yes

the nodes on which a table resides can be defined

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

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 specific operations

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Read/write lock on objects (tables, trees)

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

yes, using LMDB

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

Access rights for users and roles

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.