DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. Dgraph vs. FatDB vs. LevelDB vs. Tibero

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. Dgraph vs. FatDB vs. LevelDB vs. Tibero

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

Distributed and scalable native Graph DBMS

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

Embeddable fast key-value storage library that provides an ordered mapping from string keys to string values

A secure RDBMS, designed for easy portability from Oracle

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Graph DBMS

Document store
Key-value store

Key-value store

Relational DBMS

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

Score	17.94
Rank	#34	Overall
	#21	Relational DBMS

Score	1.45
Rank	#156	Overall
	#15	Graph DBMS

Score	2.35
Rank	#111	Overall
	#19	Key-value stores

Score	1.78
Rank	#140	Overall
	#64	Relational DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

dgraph.io

github.com/google/leveldb

us.tmaxsoft.com/products/tibero

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

dgraph.io/docs

github.com/google/leveldb/blob/main/doc/index.md

technet.tmaxsoft.com/upload/download/online/tibero/pver-20150504-000002/index.html

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

Dgraph Labs, Inc.

FatCloud

Google

TmaxSoft

Initial release

2012

2016

2012

2011

2003

Current release

1.23, February 2021

6, April 2015

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache 2.0

commercial

Open Source

BSD

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++

C and Assembler

Server operating systems

hosted

Linux
OS X
Windows

Windows

Illumos
Linux
OS X
Windows

AIX
HP-UX
Linux
Solaris
Windows

Data scheme

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.

yes

Secondary indexes

restricted

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

does not fully support an SQL-standard

Via inetgration in SQL Server

yes

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

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

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

JDBC
ODBC
ODP.NET
Oracle Call Interface (OCI)
Tibero CLI

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

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

C++
Go
Java

3rd party binding
JavaScript (Node.js)

3rd party binding
Python

3rd party binding

C
C#
C++
Cobol
Java
Objective-C
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby
Visual Basic

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

yes

via applications

Persistent Stored Procedure (PSM)

Triggers

yes

via applications

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

yes

Sharding

none

horizontal partitioning

by range, hash, list or composite

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Synchronous replication via Raft

selectable replication factor

none

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
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

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

with automatic compression on writes

yes

In-memory capabilities

Is there an option to define some or all structures to be held in-memory only.

yes

planned for next version

User concepts

Access control

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

Planned for future releases

Can implement custom security layer via applications

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard (SQL 92, SQL 99)

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.