DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. etcd vs. FoundationDB vs. mSQL

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. etcd vs. FoundationDB vs. mSQL

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Created as commercial project in 2013, FoundationDB has been acquired by Apple in March 2015 and was withdrawn from the market.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

A distributed reliable key-value store

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

mSQL (Mini SQL) is a simple and lightweight RDBMS

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Key-value store

Document store

supported via specific layer
Key-value store
Relational DBMS

supported via specific SQL-layer

Relational DBMS

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

Score	17.94
Rank	#34	Overall
	#21	Relational DBMS

Score	7.25
Rank	#54	Overall
	#5	Key-value stores

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

Score	1.27
Rank	#167	Overall
	#77	Relational DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

etcd.io
github.com/etcd-io/etcd

github.com/apple/foundationdb

hughestech.com.au/products/msql

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

etcd.io/docs
github.com/etcd-io/etcd/tree/master/Documentation

apple.github.io/foundationdb

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

FoundationDB

Hughes Technologies

Initial release

2012

2013

1994

Current release

3.4, August 2019

6.2.28, November 2020

4.4, October 2021

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0

Open Source

Apache 2.0

commercial

free licenses can be provided

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++

Server operating systems

hosted

FreeBSD
Linux
Windows

experimental

Linux
OS X
Windows

AIX
HP-UX
Linux
OS X
Solaris SPARC/x86
Windows

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.

Secondary indexes

restricted

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

does not fully support an SQL-standard

supported in specific SQL layer only

A subset of ANSI SQL is implemented

no subqueries, aggregate functions, views, foreign keys, triggers

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

gRPC
JSON over HTTP

JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

.Net
C
C++
Clojure
Erlang
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Perl
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Rust
Scala
Tcl

.Net
C
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript

Node.js
PHP
Python
Ruby
Swift

C
C++
Delphi
Java
Perl
PHP
Tcl

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

in SQL-layer only

Triggers

yes, watching key changes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Using Raft consensus algorithm to ensure data replication with strong consistency among multiple replicas.

yes

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Linearizable consistency

none

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

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.