DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. Graph Engine vs. Hypertable vs. MySQL

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. Graph Engine vs. Hypertable vs. MySQL

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Hypertable has stopped its further development with March 2016 and is removed from the DB-Engines ranking.

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

An open source BigTable implementation based on distributed file systems such as Hadoop

Widely used open source RDBMS

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

Wide column store

Relational DBMS

Key/Value like access via memcached API

Secondary database models

Document store
Spatial DBMS

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	1083.74
Rank	#2	Overall
	#2	Relational DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

www.graphengine.io

www.mysql.com

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

dev.mysql.com/doc

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

Microsoft

Hypertable Inc.

Oracle

since 2010, originally MySQL AB, then Sun

Initial release

2012

2010

2009

1995

Current release

0.9.8.11, March 2016

8.4.0, April 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

MIT License

Open Source

GNU version 3. Commercial license available

Open Source

GPL version 2. Commercial licenses with extended functionallity are available

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.

Aiven for MySQL: Fully managed MySQL, deployable in the cloud of your choice, with seamless integrations and lightning-fast setup.

Implementation language

.NET and C

C++

C and C++

Server operating systems

hosted

.NET

Linux
OS X
Windows

an inofficial Windows port is available

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

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

only exact value or prefix value scans

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

does not fully support an SQL-standard

yes

with proprietary extensions

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

RESTful HTTP API

C++ API
Thrift

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
Proprietary native API

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

C++
Java
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby

Ada
C
C#
C++
D
Delphi
Eiffel
Erlang
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scheme
Tcl

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

yes

proprietary syntax

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

horizontal partitioning

Sharding

horizontal partitioning, sharding with MySQL Cluster or MySQL Fabric

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

selectable replication factor on file system level

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

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

informational only, not enforced by the system

yes

not for MyISAM storage engine

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

not for MyISAM storage engine

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

table locks or row locks depending on storage engine

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

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

no user groups or roles

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.