DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. Dragonfly vs. Infobright vs. OpenQM

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. Dragonfly vs. Infobright vs. OpenQM

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

A drop-in Redis replacement that scales vertically to support millions of operations per second and terabyte sized workloads, all on a single instance

High performant column-oriented DBMS for analytic workloads using MySQL or PostgreSQL as a frontend

QpenQM is a high-performance, self-tuning, multi-value DBMS

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	0.49
Rank	#261	Overall
	#38	Key-value stores

Score	1.02
Rank	#192	Overall
	#90	Relational DBMS

Score	0.34
Rank	#284	Overall
	#10	Multivalue DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

github.com/dragonflydb/dragonfly
www.dragonflydb.io

ignitetech.com/softwarelibrary/infobrightdb

www.rocketsoftware.com/products/rocket-multivalue-application-development-platform/rocket-open-qm

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

www.dragonflydb.io/docs

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

DragonflyDB team and community contributors

Ignite Technologies Inc.; formerly InfoBright Inc.

Rocket Software, originally Martin Phillips

Initial release

2012

2023

2005

1993

Current release

1.0, March 2023

3.4-12

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

BSL 1.1

commercial

The open source (GPLv2) version did not support inserts/updates/deletes and was discontinued with July 2016

Open Source

GPLv2, extended commercial license 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

C++

Server operating systems

hosted

Linux

Linux
Windows

AIX
FreeBSD
Linux
macOS
Raspberry Pi
Solaris
Windows

Data scheme

yes

scheme-free

yes

with some exceptions

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

strings, hashes, lists, sets, sorted sets, bit arrays

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

Knowledge Grid Technology used instead

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

does not fully support an SQL-standard

yes

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

Proprietary protocol

RESP - REdis Serialization Protocol

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

C
C#
C++
Clojure
D
Dart
Elixir
Erlang
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Lisp
Lua
Objective-C
Perl
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Rust
Scala
Swift
Tcl

.Net
C
C#
C++
D
Eiffel
Erlang
Haskell
Java
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scheme
Tcl

.Net
Basic
C
Java
Objective C
PHP
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

Lua

yes

Triggers

publish/subscribe channels provide some trigger functionality

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

none

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Source-replica replication

yes

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Eventual Consistency

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

informational only, not enforced by the system

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Atomic execution of command blocks and scripts

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

yes, strict serializability by the server

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

Password-based authentication

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

exploiting MySQL or PostgreSQL frontend capabilities

Access rights can be defined down to the item level

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.