DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. Cachelot.io vs. FoundationDB vs. Splice Machine

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. Cachelot.io vs. FoundationDB vs. Splice Machine

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Created as commercial project in 2013, FoundationDB has been acquired by Apple in March 2015 and was withdrawn from the market. As a consequence, the product was removed from the DB-Engines ranking. In April 2018, Apple open-sourced FoundationDB and it therefore reappears in the ranking.

Description

Large scale data warehouse service for use with business intelligence tools

In-memory caching system

Ordered key-value store. Core features are complimented by layers.

Open-Source SQL RDBMS for Operational and Analytical use cases with native Machine Learning, powered by Hadoop and Spark

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Key-value store

Document store

supported via specific layer
Key-value store
Relational DBMS

supported via specific SQL-layer

Relational DBMS

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

Score	17.94
Rank	#34	Overall
	#21	Relational DBMS

Score	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#60	Key-value stores

Score	1.03
Rank	#190	Overall
	#31	Document stores
	#28	Key-value stores
	#89	Relational DBMS

Score	0.54
Rank	#250	Overall
	#114	Relational DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

cachelot.io

github.com/apple/foundationdb

splicemachine.com

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

apple.github.io/foundationdb

splicemachine.com/how-it-works

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

FoundationDB

Splice Machine

Initial release

2012

2015

2013

2014

Current release

6.2.28, November 2020

3.1, March 2021

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Simplified BSD License

Open Source

Apache 2.0

Open Source

AGPL 3.0, commercial license 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

C++

Java

Server operating systems

hosted

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X

Linux
OS X
Windows

Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

some layers support schemas

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

some layers support typing

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

supported in specific SQL layer only

yes

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

Memcached protocol

JDBC
Native Spark Datasource
ODBC

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

.Net
C
C++
ColdFusion
Erlang
Java
Lisp
Lua
OCaml
OCaml
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby

.Net
C
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript

Node.js
PHP
Python
Ruby
Swift

C#
C++
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Python
R
Scala

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

in SQL-layer only

yes

Java

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

none

Sharding

Shared Nothhing Auto-Sharding, Columnar Partitioning

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

none

yes

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Yes, via Full Spark Integration

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

none

Linearizable consistency

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

informational only, not enforced by the system

in SQL-layer only

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

yes, multi-version concurrency control (MVCC)

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

Access rights for users, groups and roles 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.