DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. Blueflood vs. Hazelcast vs. Vitess

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. Blueflood vs. Hazelcast vs. Vitess

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

Scalable TimeSeries DBMS based on Cassandra

A widely adopted in-memory data grid

Scalable, distributed, cloud-native DBMS, extending MySQL

Primary database model

Secondary database models

Document store

JSON support with IMDG 3.12

Document store
Spatial DBMS

DB-Engines Ranking measures the popularity of database management systems
Trend Chart

Score	15.25
Rank	#38	Overall
	#23	Relational DBMS

Score	0.06
Rank	#352	Overall
	#36	Time Series DBMS

Score	5.72
Rank	#59	Overall
	#6	Key-value stores

Score	0.86
Rank	#202	Overall
	#95	Relational DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

blueflood.io

hazelcast.com

vitess.io

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

github.com/rax-maas/blueflood/wiki

hazelcast.org/imdg/docs

vitess.io/docs

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

Rackspace

Hazelcast

The Linux Foundation, PlanetScale

Initial release

2012

2013

2008

2013

Current release

5.3.6, November 2023

15.0.2, December 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache 2.0

Open Source

Apache Version 2; commercial licenses available

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0, commercial licenses available

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
OS X

All OS with a Java VM

Docker
Linux
macOS

Data scheme

yes

predefined scheme

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.

yes

the object must implement a serialization strategy

Secondary indexes

restricted

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

does not fully support an SQL-standard

SQL-like query language

yes

with proprietary extensions

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

HTTP REST

JCache
JPA
Memcached protocol
RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET
JDBC
MySQL protocol
ODBC

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

.Net
C#
C++
Clojure
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Python
Scala

Ada
C
C#
C++
D
Delphi
Eiffel
Erlang
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scheme
Tcl

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

yes

Event Listeners, Executor Services

yes

proprietary syntax

Triggers

yes

Events

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

based on Cassandra

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

selectable replication factor

based on Cassandra

yes

Replicated Map

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Eventual Consistency

based on Cassandra
Immediate Consistency

based on Cassandra

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency selectable by user

Raft Consensus Algorithm

Eventual Consistency across shards
Immediate Consistency within a shard

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

informational only, not enforced by the system

yes

not for MyISAM storage engine

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

one or two-phase-commit; repeatable reads; read commited

ACID at shard level

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

table locks or row locks depending on storage engine

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

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

no user groups or roles

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.