DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. EJDB vs. OrigoDB vs. Quasardb vs. TigerGraph

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. EJDB vs. OrigoDB vs. Quasardb vs. TigerGraph

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)

A fully ACID in-memory object graph database

Distributed, high-performance timeseries database

A complete, distributed, parallel graph computing platform supporting web-scale data analytics in real-time

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Document store

Document store
Object oriented DBMS

Time Series DBMS

Graph DBMS

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

Score	15.25
Rank	#38	Overall
	#23	Relational DBMS

Score	0.13
Rank	#331	Overall
	#46	Document stores

Score	0.00
Rank	#385	Overall
	#54	Document stores
	#21	Object oriented DBMS

Score	0.13
Rank	#332	Overall
	#28	Time Series DBMS

Score	1.44
Rank	#152	Overall
	#14	Graph DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

github.com/Softmotions/ejdb

origodb.com

quasar.ai

www.tigergraph.com

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

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

origodb.com/docs

doc.quasar.ai/master

docs.tigergraph.com

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

Softmotions

Robert Friberg et al

quasardb

Initial release

2012

2009

under the name LiveDB

2009

2017

Current release

3.14.1, January 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

GPLv2

Open Source

commercial

Free community edition, Non-profit organizations and non-commercial usage are eligible for free licenses

commercial

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
Windows

BSD
Linux
OS X
Windows

Linux

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

yes

schema-free

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

string, integer, double, bool, date, object_id

User defined using .NET types and collections

yes

integer and binary

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.

can be achieved using .NET

Secondary indexes

restricted

yes

with tags

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

does not fully support an SQL-standard

SQL-like query language

SQL-like query language (GSQL)

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

in-process shared library

.NET Client API
HTTP API
LINQ

HTTP API

GSQL (TigerGraph Query Language)
Kafka
RESTful HTTP/JSON API

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

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

.Net

.Net
C
C#
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
R

C++
Java

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

horizontal partitioning

client side managed; servers are not synchronized

Sharding

consistent hashing

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

none

Source-replica replication

Source-replica replication with selectable replication factor

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

with Hadoop integration

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

yes

Relationships in graphs

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

yes

by using LevelDB

yes

In-memory capabilities

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

yes

Transient mode

User concepts

Access control

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

Role based authorization

Cryptographically strong user authentication and audit trail

Role-based access control

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.