DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. HarperDB vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. TimescaleDB

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. HarperDB vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. TimescaleDB

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

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.

A Wide Column Store for rapid development using massive semi-structured datasets

A time series DBMS optimized for fast ingest and complex queries, based on PostgreSQL

Primary database model

Secondary database models

Relational DBMS

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

Score	17.94
Rank	#34	Overall
	#21	Relational DBMS

Score	0.55
Rank	#248	Overall
	#38	Document stores

Score	4.48
Rank	#75	Overall
	#6	Wide column stores

Score	4.64
Rank	#71	Overall
	#4	Time Series DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

www.harperdb.io

azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/storage/tables

www.timescale.com

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

docs.harperdb.io/docs

docs.timescale.com

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

HarperDB

Microsoft

Timescale

Initial release

2012

2017

2012

2017

Current release

3.1, August 2021

2.15.0, May 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free community edition available

commercial

Open Source

Apache 2.0

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

Node.js

Server operating systems

hosted

Linux
OS X

hosted

Linux
OS X
Windows

Data scheme

yes

dynamic schema

schema-free

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

JSON data types

yes

numerics, strings, booleans, arrays, JSON blobs, geospatial dimensions, currencies, binary data, other complex 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.

yes

Secondary indexes

restricted

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

does not fully support an SQL-standard

SQL-like data manipulation statements

yes

full PostgreSQL SQL syntax

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

JDBC
ODBC
React Hooks
RESTful HTTP/JSON API
WebSocket

RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET
JDBC
native C library
ODBC
streaming API for large objects

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

.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

.Net
C#
C++
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
Ruby

.Net
C
C++
Delphi
Java

JDBC
JavaScript
Perl
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Scheme
Tcl

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

Custom Functions

since release 3.1

user defined functions, PL/pgSQL, PL/Tcl, PL/Perl, PL/Python, PL/Java, PL/PHP, PL/R, PL/Ruby, PL/Scheme, PL/Unix shell

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

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

Sharding

Implicit feature of the cloud service

yes, across time and space (hash partitioning) attributes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

the nodes on which a table resides can be defined

yes

implicit feature of the cloud service. Replication either local, cross-facility or geo-redundant.

Source-replica replication with hot standby and reads on replicas

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

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Atomic execution of specific operations

optimistic locking

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

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 based on private key authentication or shared access signatures

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

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.