DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. Faircom DB vs. MarkLogic vs. ObjectBox

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. Faircom DB vs. MarkLogic vs. ObjectBox

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

Native high-speed multi-model DBMS for relational and key-value store data simultaneously accessible through SQL and NoSQL APIs.

Operational and transactional Enterprise NoSQL database

Extremely fast embedded database for small devices, IoT and Mobile

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Key-value store
Relational DBMS

Document store
Native XML DBMS
RDF store

as of version 7
Search engine

Object oriented DBMS

Secondary database models

Time Series DBMS

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

Score	17.94
Rank	#34	Overall
	#21	Relational DBMS

Score	0.20
Rank	#318	Overall
	#48	Key-value stores
	#141	Relational DBMS

Score	5.92
Rank	#58	Overall
	#10	Document stores
	#1	Native XML DBMS
	#1	RDF stores
	#6	Search engines

Score	1.20
Rank	#170	Overall
	#5	Object oriented DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

www.faircom.com/products/faircom-db

www.marklogic.com

objectbox.io

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

docs.faircom.com/docs/en/UUID-7446ae34-a1a7-c843-c894-d5322e395184.html

docs.marklogic.com

docs.objectbox.io

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

FairCom Corporation

MarkLogic Corp.

ObjectBox Limited

Initial release

2012

1979

2001

2017

Current release

V12, November 2020

11.0, December 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Restricted, free version available

commercial

restricted free version is available

Open Source

Apache License 2.0

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

ANSI C, C++

C++

C and C++

Server operating systems

hosted

AIX
FreeBSD
HP-UX
Linux
NetBSD
OS X
QNX
SCO
Solaris
VxWorks
Windows

easily portable to other OSs

Linux
OS X
Windows

Android
iOS
Linux
macOS
Windows

Data scheme

yes

schema free, schema optional, schema required, partial schema,

schema-free

Schema can be enforced

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

yes, ANSI SQL Types, JSON, typed binary structures

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 with proprietary extensions

yes

SQL92

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

ADO.NET
Direct SQL
JDBC
JPA
ODBC
RESTful HTTP/JSON API
RESTful MQTT/JSON API
RPC

Java API
Node.js Client API
ODBC
proprietary Optic API

Proprietary Query API, introduced with version 9
RESTful HTTP API
SPARQL
WebDAV
XDBC
XQuery
XSLT

Proprietary native API

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

.Net
C
C#
C++
Java
JavaScript (Node.js and browser)
PHP
Python
Visual Basic

C
C#
C++
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby

C
C++
Dart
Go
Java
JavaScript

planned (as of Jan 2019)
Kotlin
Python

planned (as of Jan 2019)
Swift

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

yes

.Net, JavaScript, C/C++

yes

via XQuery or JavaScript

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

File partitioning, horizontal partitioning, sharding

Customizable business rules for table partitioning

Sharding

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

yes, configurable to be parallel or serial, synchronous or asynchronous, uni-directional or bi-directional, ACID-consistent or eventually consistent (with custom conflict resolution).

yes

online/offline synchronization between client and server

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

via Hadoop Connector, HDFS Direct Access and in-database MapReduce jobs

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency
Tunable consistency per server, database, table, and transaction

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

tunable from ACID to Eventually Consistent

ACID

can act as a resource manager in an XA/JTA transaction

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

Yes, tunable from durable to delayed durability to in-memory

yes

In-memory capabilities

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

yes

yes, with Range Indexes

User concepts

Access control

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

Fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard with additional protections for files

Role-based access control at the document and subdocument levels

yes

More information provided by the system vendor

News

Edge AI: The era of on-device AI
23 April 2024

In-Memory Database Use Cases
15 February 2024

Data Viewer for Objects – announcing ObjectBox Admin
14 November 2023

Vector Databases for Edge AI
9 August 2023

Vector Database Release for Flutter / Dart + Python
13 June 2023

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.