DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. Graph Engine vs. Hyprcubd vs. SQLite vs. TerarkDB

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. Graph Engine vs. Hyprcubd vs. SQLite vs. TerarkDB

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Hyprcubd seems to be discontinued. Therefore it is excluded 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

Serverless Time Series DBMS

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

A key-value store forked from RocksDB with advanced compression algorithms. It can be used standalone or as a storage engine for MySQL and MongoDB

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

Time Series DBMS

Relational DBMS

Key-value store

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	114.32
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Score	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#60	Key-value stores

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

www.graphengine.io

hyprcubd.com (offline)

www.sqlite.org

github.com/bytedance/terarkdb

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

bytedance.larkoffice.com/docs/doccnZmYFqHBm06BbvYgjsHHcKc

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

Microsoft

Hyprcubd, Inc.

Dwayne Richard Hipp

ByteDance, originally Terark

Initial release

2012

2010

2000

2016

Current release

3.45.3 (15 April 2024), April 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

MIT License

commercial

Open Source

Public Domain

commercial

restricted open source version 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.

Implementation language

.NET and C

C++

Server operating systems

hosted

.NET

hosted

server-less

Data scheme

yes

dynamic column types

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

time, int, uint, float, string

yes

not rigid because of 'dynamic typing' concept.

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 query language

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

RESTful HTTP API

gRPC (https)

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

C++ API
Java API

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

Actionscript
Ada
Basic
C
C#
C++
D
Delphi
Forth
Fortran
Haskell
Java
JavaScript
Lisp
Lua
MatLab
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
PL/SQL
Python
R
Ruby
Scala
Scheme
Smalltalk
Tcl

C++
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

yes

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

horizontal partitioning

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

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

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

via file-system locks

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

token access

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.