DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. BigObject vs. LMDB vs. TigerGraph

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. BigObject vs. LMDB vs. TigerGraph

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 high performant, light-weight, embedded key-value database library

A complete, distributed, parallel graph computing platform supporting web-scale data analytics in real-time

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

a hierachical model (tree) can be imposed

Key-value store

Graph 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	1.94
Rank	#120	Overall
	#20	Key-value stores

Score	1.44
Rank	#152	Overall
	#14	Graph DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

bigobject.io

www.symas.com/symas-embedded-database-lmdb

www.tigergraph.com

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

docs.bigobject.io

www.lmdb.tech/doc

docs.tigergraph.com

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

BigObject, Inc.

Symas

Initial release

2012

2015

2011

2017

Current release

0.9.32, January 2024

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

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
Unix
Windows

Linux

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

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

SQL-like query language (GSQL)

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

fluentd
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

GSQL (TigerGraph Query Language)
Kafka
RESTful HTTP/JSON API

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

.Net
C
C++
Clojure
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Lisp
Lua
MatLab
Nim
Objective C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Rust
Swift
Tcl

C++
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

Lua

yes

Triggers

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

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

Relationships in graphs

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

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

Role-based access control

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.