DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. Graph Engine vs. HarperDB vs. searchxml

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. Graph Engine vs. HarperDB vs. searchxml

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.

DBMS for structured and unstructured content wrapped with an application server

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

Document store

Native XML DBMS
Search engine

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

Score	17.94
Rank	#34	Overall
	#21	Relational DBMS

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

Score	0.55
Rank	#248	Overall
	#38	Document stores

Score	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#7	Native XML DBMS
	#25	Search engines

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

www.graphengine.io

www.harperdb.io

www.searchxml.net/category/products

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

docs.harperdb.io/docs

www.searchxml.net/support/handouts

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

Microsoft

HarperDB

informationpartners gmbh

Initial release

2012

2010

2017

2015

Current release

3.1, August 2021

1.0

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

C++

Server operating systems

hosted

.NET

Linux
OS X

Windows

Data scheme

yes

dynamic schema

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

JSON data types

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

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 API
WebDAV
XQuery
XSLT

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++

most other programming languages supported via APIs

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

yes

Custom Functions

since release 3.1

yes

on the application server

Triggers

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

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

the nodes on which a table resides can be defined

yes

sychronisation to multiple collections

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate 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

multiple readers, single writer

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, 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

Domain, group and role-based access control at the document level and for application services

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.