DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. Faircom DB vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. SiriDB vs. STSdb

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. Faircom DB vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. SiriDB vs. STSdb

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.

A Wide Column Store for rapid development using massive semi-structured datasets

Open Source Time Series DBMS

Key-Value Store with special method for indexing

optimized for high performance using a special indexing method

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Key-value store
Relational DBMS

Wide column store

Time Series DBMS

Key-value store

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

Score	16.88
Rank	#35	Overall
	#22	Relational DBMS

Score	0.29
Rank	#304	Overall
	#43	Key-value stores
	#136	Relational DBMS

Score	4.04
Rank	#77	Overall
	#6	Wide column stores

Score	0.07
Rank	#378	Overall
	#42	Time Series DBMS

Score	0.10
Rank	#357	Overall
	#51	Key-value stores

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

www.faircom.com/products/faircom-db

azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/storage/tables

siridb.com

github.com/STSSoft/STSdb4

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

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

docs.siridb.com

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

FairCom Corporation

Microsoft

Cesbit

STS Soft SC

Initial release

2012

1979

2012

2017

2011

Current release

V12, November 2020

4.0.8, September 2015

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Restricted, free version available

commercial

Open Source

MIT License

Open Source

GPLv2, commercial license available

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++

Server operating systems

hosted

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

easily portable to other OSs

hosted

Linux

Windows

Data scheme

yes

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

schema-free

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

yes, ANSI SQL Types, JSON, typed binary structures

yes

Numeric data

yes

primitive types and user defined types (classes)

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

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

does not fully support an SQL-standard

yes, ANSI SQL with proprietary extensions

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

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

RESTful HTTP API

HTTP API

.NET Client API

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

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

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

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

C#
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

yes

.Net, JavaScript, C/C++

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

Implicit feature of the cloud service

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

implicit feature of the cloud service. Replication either local, cross-facility or geo-redundant.

yes

none

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
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

optimistic locking

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

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

Access rights based on private key authentication or shared access signatures

simple rights management via user accounts

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.