DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. Coveo vs. FatDB vs. VelocityDB

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. Coveo vs. FatDB vs. VelocityDB

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

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

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

A .NET Object Database that can be embedded/distributed and extended to a graph data model (VelocityGraph)

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Search engine

Document store
Key-value store

Graph DBMS
Object oriented DBMS

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

Score	15.25
Rank	#38	Overall
	#23	Relational DBMS

Score	2.14
Rank	#116	Overall
	#11	Search engines

Score	0.00
Rank	#385	Overall
	#40	Graph DBMS
	#21	Object oriented DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

www.coveo.com

velocitydb.com

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

docs.coveo.com

velocitydb.com/UserGuide

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

Coveo

FatCloud

VelocityDB Inc

Initial release

2012

2011

Current release

7.x

License

Commercial or 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

Server operating systems

hosted

Windows

Any that supports .NET

Data scheme

yes

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

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

Via inetgration in SQL Server

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

RESTful HTTP API

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

.Net

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

C#
Java
JavaScript
Python

.Net

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

yes

via applications

Triggers

yes

via applications

Callbacks are triggered when data changes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

yes

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

selectable replication factor

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

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

Can implement custom security layer via applications

Based on Windows Authentication

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.