DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. EJDB vs. IBM Db2 vs. Infobright

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. EJDB vs. IBM Db2 vs. Infobright

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

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

Common in IBM host environments, 2 different versions for host and Windows/Linux

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

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Document store

Relational DBMS

Since Version 10.5 support for JSON/BSON documents compatible with MongoDB

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
RDF store

in Db2 LUW (Linux, Unix, Windows)
Spatial DBMS

with Db2 Spatial Extender

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

Score	16.88
Rank	#35	Overall
	#22	Relational DBMS

Score	0.31
Rank	#296	Overall
	#44	Document stores

Score	125.90
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Score	1.02
Rank	#192	Overall
	#90	Relational DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

github.com/Softmotions/ejdb

www.ibm.com/products/db2

ignitetech.com/softwarelibrary/infobrightdb

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

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

www.ibm.com/docs/en/db2

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

Softmotions

IBM

Ignite Technologies Inc.; formerly InfoBright Inc.

Initial release

2012

1983

host version

2005

Current release

12.1, October 2016

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

GPLv2

commercial

free version is available

commercial

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

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 and C++

Server operating systems

hosted

server-less

AIX
HP-UX
Linux
Solaris
Windows
z/OS

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

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

yes

Knowledge Grid Technology used instead

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

does not fully support an SQL-standard

yes

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

in-process shared library

ADO.NET
JDBC
JSON style queries

MongoDB compatible
ODBC
XQuery

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

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

C
C#
C++
Cobol
Delphi
Fortran
Java
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby
Visual Basic

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

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

yes

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

none

Sharding

only with Windows/Unix/Linux Version

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

none

yes

with separate tools (MQ, InfoSphere)

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

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

informational only, not enforced by the system

typically not needed, however similar functionality with collection joins possible

yes

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

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

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.