DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. Coveo vs. EsgynDB vs. LMDB

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. Coveo vs. EsgynDB vs. LMDB

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

AI-powered hosted search, recommendation and personalization platform providing tools for both low-code and full-code development

Enterprise-class SQL-on-Hadoop solution, powered by Apache Trafodion

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

Primary database model

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

Score	16.88
Rank	#35	Overall
	#22	Relational DBMS

Score	2.11
Rank	#118	Overall
	#11	Search engines

Score	0.25
Rank	#312	Overall
	#138	Relational DBMS

Score	2.09
Rank	#121	Overall
	#20	Key-value stores

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

www.coveo.com

www.esgyn.cn

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

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

docs.coveo.com

www.lmdb.tech/doc

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

Coveo

Esgyn

Symas

Initial release

2012

2015

2011

Current release

0.9.32, January 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

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

Linux

Linux
Unix
Windows

Data scheme

yes

hybrid - fields need to be configured prior to indexing, but relationships can be exploited at query time without pre-configuration

yes

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.

Secondary indexes

restricted

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

does not fully support an SQL-standard

yes

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

C#
Java
JavaScript
Python

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC/ADO.Net

.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

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

Java Stored Procedures

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

yes

Sharding

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Multi-source replication between multi datacenters

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

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

yes

ACID

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

granular access controls, API key management, content filters

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.