DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. Dgraph vs. EsgynDB vs. etcd vs. PlanetScale

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. Dgraph vs. EsgynDB vs. etcd vs. PlanetScale

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

Large scale data warehouse service for use with business intelligence tools

Distributed and scalable native Graph DBMS

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

A distributed reliable key-value store

Scalable, distributed, serverless MySQL database platform built on top of Vitess

Primary database model

Secondary database models

Document store
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	16.88
Rank	#35	Overall
	#22	Relational DBMS

Score	1.53
Rank	#152	Overall
	#15	Graph DBMS

Score	0.25
Rank	#312	Overall
	#138	Relational DBMS

Score	7.03
Rank	#54	Overall
	#5	Key-value stores

Score	1.49
Rank	#155	Overall
	#72	Relational DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

dgraph.io

www.esgyn.cn

etcd.io
github.com/etcd-io/etcd

planetscale.com

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

dgraph.io/docs

etcd.io/docs
github.com/etcd-io/etcd/tree/master/Documentation

planetscale.com/docs

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

Dgraph Labs, Inc.

Esgyn

PlanetScale

Initial release

2012

2016

2015

2020

Current release

3.4, August 2019

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache 2.0

commercial

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0

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

C++, Java

Server operating systems

hosted

Linux
OS X
Windows

Linux

FreeBSD
Linux
Windows

experimental

Docker
Linux
macOS

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

yes

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

yes

with proprietary extensions

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

GraphQL query language
gRPC (using protocol buffers) API
HTTP API

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

gRPC
JSON over HTTP

ADO.NET
JDBC
MySQL protocol
ODBC

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

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

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC/ADO.Net

.Net
C
C++
Clojure
Erlang
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Perl
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Rust
Scala
Tcl

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

Java Stored Procedures

yes

proprietary syntax

Triggers

yes, watching key changes

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

yes

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Synchronous replication via Raft

Multi-source replication between multi datacenters

Using Raft consensus algorithm to ensure data replication with strong consistency among multiple replicas.

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 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

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

Planned for future releases

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

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.