DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. FatDB vs. Percona Server for MySQL vs. STSdb vs. TigerGraph

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. FatDB vs. Percona Server for MySQL vs. STSdb vs. TigerGraph

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.

Enhanced drop-in replacement for MySQL based on XtraDB or TokuDB storage engines with improved performance and additional diagnostic and management features.

Key-Value Store with special method for indexing

optimized for high performance using a special indexing method

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

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Document store
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Key-value store

Graph DBMS

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

Score	17.94
Rank	#34	Overall
	#21	Relational DBMS

Score	2.03
Rank	#122	Overall
	#57	Relational DBMS

Score	0.04
Rank	#360	Overall
	#52	Key-value stores

Score	1.83
Rank	#139	Overall
	#13	Graph DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

www.percona.com/software/mysql-database/percona-server

github.com/STSSoft/STSdb4

www.tigergraph.com

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

www.percona.com/downloads/Percona-Server-LATEST

docs.tigergraph.com

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

FatCloud

Percona

STS Soft SC

Initial release

2012

2008

2011

2017

Current release

8.0.36-28, 2024

4.0.8, September 2015

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

GPL version 2

Open Source

GPLv2, commercial license available

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 and C++

C++

Server operating systems

hosted

Windows

Linux

Windows

Linux

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

primitive types and user defined types (classes)

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

Via inetgration in SQL Server

yes

SQL-like query language (GSQL)

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

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

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

.NET Client API

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

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

Ada
C
C#
C++
D
Eiffel
Erlang
Haskell
Java
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scheme
Tcl

C#
Java

C++
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

yes

via applications

yes

Triggers

yes

via applications

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

selectable replication factor

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication
XtraDB Cluster

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

Immediate Consistency

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

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

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

no user groups or roles

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.