DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. Graph Engine vs. Riak KV vs. Snowflake

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. Graph Engine vs. Riak KV vs. Snowflake

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

Distributed, fault tolerant key-value store

Cloud-based data warehousing service for structured and semi-structured data

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

Key-value store

with links between data sets and object tags for the creation of secondary indexes

Relational DBMS

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

Score	19.03
Rank	#34	Overall
	#21	Relational DBMS

Score	0.62
Rank	#240	Overall
	#21	Graph DBMS
	#35	Key-value stores

Score	4.44
Rank	#80	Overall
	#9	Key-value stores

Score	123.20
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

www.graphengine.io

www.snowflake.com

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

www.tiot.jp/riak-docs/riak/kv/latest

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

Microsoft

OpenSource, formerly Basho Technologies

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Initial release

2012

2010

2009

2014

Current release

3.2.0, December 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

MIT License

Open Source

Apache version 2, commercial enterprise edition

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

Erlang

Server operating systems

hosted

.NET

Linux
OS X

hosted

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

yes

support of semi-structured data formats (JSON, XML, Avro)

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

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

does not fully support an SQL-standard

yes

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

RESTful HTTP API

HTTP API
Native Erlang Interface

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

unofficial client library
C#
C++

unofficial client library
Clojure

unofficial client library
Dart

unofficial client library
Erlang
Go

unofficial client library
Groovy

unofficial client library
Haskell

unofficial client library
Java
JavaScript

unofficial client library
Lisp

unofficial client library
Perl

unofficial client library
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scala

unofficial client library
Smalltalk

unofficial client library

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

yes

Erlang

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

pre-commit hooks and post-commit hooks

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

horizontal partitioning

Sharding

no "single point of failure"

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

selectable replication factor

yes

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

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

informational only, not enforced by the system

links between data sets can be stored

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, using Riak Security

Users with fine-grained authorization concept, user roles and pluggable authentication

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.