DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. FoundationDB vs. GridGain vs. Netezza

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. FoundationDB vs. GridGain vs. Netezza

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Created as commercial project in 2013, FoundationDB has been acquired by Apple in March 2015 and was withdrawn from the market. As a consequence, the product was removed from the DB-Engines ranking. In April 2018, Apple open-sourced FoundationDB and it therefore reappears in the ranking.

Description

Large scale data warehouse service for use with business intelligence tools

Ordered key-value store. Core features are complimented by layers.

GridGain is an in-memory computing platform, built on Apache Ignite

Data warehouse and analytics appliance part of IBM PureSystems

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Document store

supported via specific layer
Key-value store
Relational DBMS

supported via specific SQL-layer

Key-value store
Relational DBMS

Relational DBMS

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

Score	17.94
Rank	#34	Overall
	#21	Relational DBMS

Score	1.03
Rank	#190	Overall
	#31	Document stores
	#28	Key-value stores
	#89	Relational DBMS

Score	1.47
Rank	#154	Overall
	#26	Key-value stores
	#72	Relational DBMS

Score	9.06
Rank	#46	Overall
	#29	Relational DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

github.com/apple/foundationdb

www.gridgain.com

www.ibm.com/products/netezza

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

apple.github.io/foundationdb

www.gridgain.com/docs/index.html

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

FoundationDB

GridGain Systems, Inc.

IBM

Initial release

2012

2013

2007

2000

Current release

6.2.28, November 2020

GridGain 8.5.1

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

C++

Java, C++, .Net

Server operating systems

hosted

Linux
OS X
Windows

Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

Linux

included in appliance

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

some layers support schemas

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

some layers support typing

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

supported in specific SQL layer only

ANSI-99 for query and DML statements, subset of DDL

yes

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

HDFS API
Hibernate
JCache
JDBC
ODBC
Proprietary protocol
RESTful HTTP API
Spring Data

JDBC
ODBC
OLE DB

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

.Net
C
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript

Node.js
PHP
Python
Ruby
Swift

C#
C++
Java
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scala

C
C++
Fortran
Java
Lua
Perl
Python
R

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

in SQL-layer only

yes (compute grid and cache interceptors can be used instead)

yes

Triggers

yes (cache interceptors and events)

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

yes (replicated cache)

Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes (compute grid and hadoop accelerator)

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Linearizable consistency

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

informational only, not enforced by the system

in SQL-layer only

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

Security Hooks for custom implementations

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

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.