DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. CockroachDB vs. FatDB vs. Hazelcast

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. CockroachDB vs. FatDB vs. Hazelcast

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

FatDB/FatCloud has ceased operations as a company with February 2014. FatDB is discontinued and excluded from the ranking.

Description

Large scale data warehouse service for use with business intelligence tools

CockroachDB is a distributed database architected for modern cloud applications. It is wire compatible with PostgreSQL and backed by a Key-Value Store, which is either RocksDB or a purpose-built derivative, called Pebble.

A .NET NoSQL DBMS that can integrate with and extend SQL Server.

A widely adopted in-memory data grid

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Document store
Key-value store

Key-value store

Secondary database models

Document store

JSON support with IMDG 3.12

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

Score	17.94
Rank	#34	Overall
	#21	Relational DBMS

Score	6.15
Rank	#55	Overall
	#33	Relational DBMS

Score	5.97
Rank	#57	Overall
	#6	Key-value stores

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

www.cockroachlabs.com

hazelcast.com

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

www.cockroachlabs.com/docs

hazelcast.org/imdg/docs

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

Cockroach Labs

FatCloud

Hazelcast

Initial release

2012

2015

2012

2008

Current release

23.1.1, May 2023

5.3.6, November 2023

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache 2.0, commercial license available

commercial

Open Source

Apache Version 2; 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
macOS
Windows

Windows

All OS with a Java VM

Data scheme

yes

dynamic schema

schema-free

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

yes, wire compatible with PostgreSQL

Via inetgration in SQL Server

SQL-like query language

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

JDBC

.NET Client API
LINQ
RESTful HTTP API
RPC
Windows WCF Bindings

JCache
JPA
Memcached protocol
RESTful HTTP API

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

C#
C++
Clojure
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
Ruby
Rust

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

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

yes

via applications

yes

Event Listeners, Executor Services

Triggers

yes

via applications

yes

Events

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

horizontal partitioning (by key range)

all tables are translated to an ordered KV store and then broken down into 64MB ranges, which are then used as replicas in RAFT

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Multi-source replication using RAFT

selectable replication factor

yes

Replicated Map

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
Immediate Consistency

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency selectable by user

Raft Consensus Algorithm

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

informational only, not enforced by the system

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

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

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

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

Can implement custom security layer via applications

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.