DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. FatDB vs. Heroic vs. IBM Db2 warehouse

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. FatDB vs. Heroic vs. IBM Db2 warehouse

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.

Time Series DBMS built at Spotify based on Cassandra or Google Cloud Bigtable, and ElasticSearch

Cloud-based data warehousing service

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Document store
Key-value store

Time Series DBMS

Relational DBMS

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

Score	16.88
Rank	#35	Overall
	#22	Relational DBMS

Score	0.46
Rank	#265	Overall
	#22	Time Series DBMS

Score	1.37
Rank	#160	Overall
	#74	Relational DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

github.com/spotify/heroic

www.ibm.com/products/db2/warehouse

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

spotify.github.io/heroic

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

FatCloud

Spotify

IBM

Initial release

2012

2014

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache 2.0

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

Java

Server operating systems

hosted

Windows

hosted

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

yes

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.

Import/export of XML data possible

Secondary indexes

restricted

yes

via Elasticsearch

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

does not fully support an SQL-standard

Via inetgration in SQL Server

yes

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

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

HQL (Heroic Query Language, a JSON-based language)
HTTP API

.NET Client API
JDBC
ODBC
OLE DB

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Perl
PHP
Python
R
Ruby

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

yes

via applications

PL/SQL, SQL PL

Triggers

yes

via applications

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

selectable replication factor

yes

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

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

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

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

Can implement custom security layer via applications

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

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.