DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. GBase vs. Graph Engine vs. IRONdb vs. Yaacomo

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. GBase vs. Graph Engine vs. IRONdb vs. Yaacomo

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

IRONdb seems to be discontinued. Therefore it is excluded from the DB-Engines Ranking.

Yaacomo seems to be discontinued and is removed from the DB-Engines ranking

Description

Large scale data warehouse service for use with business intelligence tools

Widely used RDBMS in China, including analytical, transactional, distributed transactional, and cloud-native data warehousing.

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

A distributed Time Series DBMS with a focus on scalability, fault tolerance and operational simplicity

OpenCL based in-memory RDBMS, designed for efficiently utilizing the hardware via parallel computing

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

Time Series 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	1.07
Rank	#185	Overall
	#86	Relational DBMS

Score	0.61
Rank	#240	Overall
	#21	Graph DBMS
	#35	Key-value stores

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

www.gbase.cn

www.graphengine.io

www.circonus.com/solutions/time-series-database/

yaacomo.com

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

docs.circonus.com/irondb/category/getting-started

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

General Data Technology Co., Ltd.

Microsoft

Circonus LLC.

Q2WEB GmbH

Initial release

2012

2004

2010

2017

2009

Current release

GBase 8a, GBase 8s, GBase 8c

V0.10.20, January 2018

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

MIT License

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, Python

.NET and C

C and C++

Server operating systems

hosted

Linux

.NET

Linux

Android
Linux
Windows

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

text, numeric, histograms

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

Standard with numerous extensions

SQL-like query language (Circonus Analytics Query Language: CAQL)

yes

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

ADO.NET
C API
JDBC
ODBC

RESTful HTTP API

HTTP API

JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

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

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

user defined functions

yes

yes, in Lua

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

horizontal partitioning (by range, list and hash) and vertical partitioning

horizontal partitioning

Automatic, metric affinity per node

horizontal partitioning

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

configurable replication factor, datacenter aware

Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Immediate consistency per node, eventual consistency across nodes

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

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

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

yes

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.