DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. Hypertable vs. OrigoDB vs. RavenDB

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. Hypertable vs. OrigoDB vs. RavenDB

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

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

A fully ACID in-memory object graph database

Open Source Operational and Transactional Enterprise NoSQL Document Database

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Wide column store

Document store
Object oriented DBMS

Document store

Secondary database models

Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS
Time Series DBMS

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

Score	17.94
Rank	#34	Overall
	#21	Relational DBMS

Score	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#53	Document stores
	#20	Object oriented DBMS

Score	2.92
Rank	#101	Overall
	#18	Document stores

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

origodb.com

ravendb.net

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

origodb.com/docs

ravendb.net/docs

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

Hypertable Inc.

Robert Friberg et al

Hibernating Rhinos

Initial release

2012

2009

under the name LiveDB

2010

Current release

0.9.8.11, March 2016

5.4, July 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

GNU version 3. Commercial license available

Open Source

AGPL version 3, commercial license 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

C++

Server operating systems

hosted

Linux
OS X
Windows

an inofficial Windows port is available

Linux
Windows

Linux
macOS
Raspberry Pi
Windows

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

yes

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

User defined using .NET types and collections

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.

can be achieved using .NET

Secondary indexes

restricted

only exact value or prefix value scans

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

does not fully support an SQL-standard

SQL-like query language (RQL)

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

C++ API
Thrift

.NET Client API
HTTP API
LINQ

.NET Client API
F# Client API
Go Client API
Java Client API
NodeJS Client API
PHP Client API
Python Client API
RESTful HTTP API

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

C++
Java
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby

.Net

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

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

yes

Triggers

yes

Domain Events

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

horizontal partitioning

client side managed; servers are not synchronized

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

selectable replication factor on file system level

Source-replica replication

Multi-source replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Default ACID transactions on the local node (eventually consistent across the cluster). Atomic operations with cluster-wide ACID transactions. Eventual consistency for indexes and full-text search indexes.

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

informational only, not enforced by the system

depending on model

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

ACID, Cluster-wide transaction available

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

Write ahead log

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

Role based authorization

Authorization levels configured per client per database

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.