DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. Graph Engine vs. HarperDB vs. IBM Cloudant

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. Graph Engine vs. HarperDB vs. IBM Cloudant

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

Large scale data warehouse service for use with business intelligence tools

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

Ultra-low latency distributed database with an intuitive REST API supporting NoSQL and SQL (including joins). Deployment of functions and databases simultaneously with a consolidated node-level architecture.

Database as a Service offering based on Apache CouchDB

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

Document store

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

Score	16.88
Rank	#35	Overall
	#22	Relational DBMS

Score	0.67
Rank	#232	Overall
	#21	Graph DBMS
	#34	Key-value stores

Score	0.60
Rank	#244	Overall
	#38	Document stores

Score	2.75
Rank	#104	Overall
	#19	Document stores

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

www.graphengine.io

www.harperdb.io

www.ibm.com/products/cloudant

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

docs.harperdb.io/docs

cloud.ibm.com/docs/Cloudant

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

Microsoft

HarperDB

IBM, Apache Software Foundation

IBM acquired Cloudant in February 2014

Initial release

2012

2010

2017

2010

Current release

3.1, August 2021

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

MIT License

commercial

free community edition 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

.NET and C

Node.js

Erlang

Server operating systems

hosted

.NET

Linux
OS X

hosted

Data scheme

yes

dynamic schema

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

JSON data types

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

SQL-like data manipulation statements

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

RESTful HTTP API

JDBC
ODBC
React Hooks
RESTful HTTP/JSON API
WebSocket

RESTful HTTP/JSON API

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

.Net
C
C#
C++
ColdFusion
D
Dart
Delphi
Erlang
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Lisp
MatLab
Objective C
Perl
PHP
PowerShell
Prolog
Python
R
Ruby
Rust
Scala
Swift

C#
Java
JavaScript
Objective-C
PHP
Ruby

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

yes

Custom Functions

since release 3.1

View functions (Map-Reduce) in JavaScript

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

horizontal partitioning

A table resides as a whole on one (or more) nodes in a cluster

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

the nodes on which a table resides can be defined

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

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

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

informational only, not enforced by the system

Transaction concepts

Support to ensure data integrity after non-atomic manipulations of data

ACID

Atomic execution of specific operations

atomic operations within a document possible

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Optimistic locking

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, using LMDB

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

Access rights for users and roles

Access rights for users can be defined per database

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.