DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. Dragonfly vs. Microsoft Azure SQL Database vs. openGauss

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. Dragonfly vs. Microsoft Azure SQL Database vs. openGauss

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

Database as a Service offering with high compatibility to Microsoft SQL Server

An enterprise-class RDBMS compatible with high-performance, high-availability and high-performance originally developed by Huawei

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS

Document store
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	15.25
Rank	#38	Overall
	#23	Relational DBMS

Score	0.44
Rank	#255	Overall
	#38	Key-value stores

Score	72.95
Rank	#16	Overall
	#11	Relational DBMS

Score	1.11
Rank	#175	Overall
	#79	Relational DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

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

azure.microsoft.com/en-us/products/azure-sql/database

gitee.com/opengauss
opengauss.org

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

www.dragonflydb.io/docs

docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-sql

docs.opengauss.org/en
gitee.com/opengauss/docs

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

DragonflyDB team and community contributors

Microsoft

Huawei and openGauss community

Initial release

2012

2023

2010

2019

Current release

1.0, March 2023

V12

3.0, March 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

BSL 1.1

commercial

Open Source

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, C++, Java

Server operating systems

hosted

Linux

hosted

Linux

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.

yes

Secondary indexes

restricted

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

does not fully support an SQL-standard

yes

ANSI SQL 2011

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#
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
Ruby

C
C++
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

Lua

Transact SQL

yes

Triggers

publish/subscribe channels provide some trigger functionality

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

horizontal partitioning (by range, list and hash)

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Source-replica replication

yes, with always 3 replicas available

Source-replica replication

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

yes

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

Access rights for users, groups and roles according to SQL-standard

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.