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

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

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

mSQL (Mini SQL) is a simple and lightweight RDBMS

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Key-value store

Relational DBMS

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	1.27
Rank	#169	Overall
	#76	Relational DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

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

ignitetech.com/softwarelibrary/infobrightdb

hughestech.com.au/products/msql

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.

Hughes Technologies

Initial release

2012

2023

2005

1994

Current release

1.0, March 2023

4.4, October 2021

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

commercial

free licenses can be provided

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
HP-UX
Linux
OS X
Solaris SPARC/x86
Windows

Data scheme

yes

scheme-free

yes

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.

Secondary indexes

restricted

Knowledge Grid Technology used instead

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

does not fully support an SQL-standard

yes

A subset of ANSI SQL is implemented

no subqueries, aggregate functions, views, foreign keys, triggers

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

Proprietary protocol

RESP - REdis Serialization Protocol

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

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

C
C++
Delphi
Java
Perl
PHP
Tcl

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

Lua

Triggers

publish/subscribe channels provide some trigger functionality

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Source-replica replication

none

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

none

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

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.