DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. EJDB vs. Hypertable vs. Machbase Neo vs. OrigoDB

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. EJDB vs. Hypertable vs. Machbase Neo vs. OrigoDB

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Hypertable has stopped its further development with March 2016 and is removed from the DB-Engines ranking.

Description

Large scale data warehouse service for use with business intelligence tools

Embeddable document-store database library with JSON representation of queries (in MongoDB style)

An open source BigTable implementation based on distributed file systems such as Hadoop

TimeSeries DBMS for AIoT and BigData

A fully ACID in-memory object graph database

Primary database model

Document store
Object oriented DBMS

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

Score	17.94
Rank	#34	Overall
	#21	Relational DBMS

Score	0.27
Rank	#297	Overall
	#44	Document stores

Score	0.12
Rank	#339	Overall
	#30	Time Series DBMS

Score	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#53	Document stores
	#20	Object oriented DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

github.com/Softmotions/ejdb

machbase.com

origodb.com

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

github.com/Softmotions/ejdb/blob/master/README.md

machbase.com/dbms

origodb.com/docs

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

Softmotions

Hypertable Inc.

Machbase

Robert Friberg et al

Initial release

2012

2009

2013

2009

under the name LiveDB

Current release

0.9.8.11, March 2016

V8.0, August 2023

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

GPLv2

Open Source

GNU version 3. Commercial license available

commercial

free test version available

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++

Server operating systems

hosted

server-less

Linux
OS X
Windows

an inofficial Windows port is available

Linux
macOS
Windows

Linux
Windows

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

string, integer, double, bool, date, object_id

yes

User defined using .NET types and collections

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.

can be achieved using .NET

Secondary indexes

restricted

only exact value or prefix value scans

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

does not fully support an SQL-standard

SQL-like query language

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

in-process shared library

C++ API
Thrift

gRPC
HTTP REST
JDBC
MQTT (Message Queue Telemetry Transport)
ODBC

.NET Client API
HTTP API
LINQ

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

Actionscript
C
C#
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Lua
Objective-C
Pike
Python
Ruby

C++
Java
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby

C
C#
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript
PHP

via ODBC
Python
R

via ODBC
Scala

.Net

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

yes

Triggers

yes

Domain Events

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

none

Sharding

horizontal partitioning

client side managed; servers are not synchronized

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

none

selectable replication factor on file system level

selectable replication factor

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

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

informational only, not enforced by the system

typically not needed, however similar functionality with collection joins possible

depending on model

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Read/Write Locking

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

Write ahead log

In-memory capabilities

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

yes

volatile and lookup table

yes

User concepts

Access control

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

simple password-based access control

Role based authorization

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.