DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. FatDB vs. Graph Engine vs. TinkerGraph

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. FatDB vs. Graph Engine vs. TinkerGraph

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

FatDB/FatCloud has ceased operations as a company with February 2014. FatDB is discontinued and excluded from the ranking.

Description

Large scale data warehouse service for use with business intelligence tools

A .NET NoSQL DBMS that can integrate with and extend SQL Server.

A distributed in-memory data processing engine, underpinned by a strongly-typed RAM store and a general distributed computation engine

A lightweight, in-memory graph engine that serves as a reference implementation of the TinkerPop3 API

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Document store
Key-value store

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

Graph DBMS

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

Score	16.88
Rank	#35	Overall
	#22	Relational DBMS

Score	0.67
Rank	#232	Overall
	#21	Graph DBMS
	#34	Key-value stores

Score	0.13
Rank	#345	Overall
	#35	Graph DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

www.graphengine.io

tinkerpop.apache.org/docs/current/reference/#tinkergraph-gremlin

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

FatCloud

Microsoft

Initial release

2012

2010

2009

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

MIT License

Open Source

Apache 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

.NET and C

Java

Server operating systems

hosted

Windows

.NET

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

yes

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

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

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

does not fully support an SQL-standard

Via inetgration in SQL Server

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

.NET Client API
LINQ
RESTful HTTP API
RPC
Windows WCF Bindings

RESTful HTTP API

TinkerPop 3

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

Groovy
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

yes

via applications

yes

Triggers

yes

via applications

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

horizontal partitioning

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

selectable replication factor

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

none

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

informational only, not enforced by the system

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

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

optional: either by committing a write-ahead log (WAL) to the local persistent storage or by dumping the memory to a persistent storage

optional

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

Can implement custom security layer via applications

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.