DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. Infobright vs. Oracle Berkeley DB vs. SurrealDB

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. Infobright vs. Oracle Berkeley DB vs. SurrealDB

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

High performant column-oriented DBMS for analytic workloads using MySQL or PostgreSQL as a frontend

Widely used in-process key-value store

A fully ACID transactional, developer-friendly, multi-model DBMS

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Key-value store

supports sorted and unsorted key sets
Native XML DBMS

in the Oracle Berkeley DB XML version

Document store
Graph DBMS

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

Score	16.88
Rank	#35	Overall
	#22	Relational DBMS

Score	1.02
Rank	#192	Overall
	#90	Relational DBMS

Score	2.01
Rank	#126	Overall
	#21	Key-value stores
	#3	Native XML DBMS

Score	1.02
Rank	#190	Overall
	#33	Document stores
	#18	Graph DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

ignitetech.com/softwarelibrary/infobrightdb

www.oracle.com/database/technologies/related/berkeleydb.html

surrealdb.com

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

docs.oracle.com/cd/E17076_05/html/index.html

surrealdb.com/docs

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

Ignite Technologies Inc.; formerly InfoBright Inc.

Oracle

originally developed by Sleepycat, which was acquired by Oracle

SurrealDB Ltd

Initial release

2012

2005

1994

2022

Current release

18.1.40, May 2020

v1.5.0, May 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

The open source (GPLv2) version did not support inserts/updates/deletes and was discontinued with July 2016

Open Source

commercial license available

Open Source

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, Java, C++ (depending on the Berkeley DB edition)

Rust

Server operating systems

hosted

Linux
Windows

AIX
Android
FreeBSD
iOS
Linux
OS X
Solaris
VxWorks
Windows

Linux
macOS
Windows

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

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

only with the Berkeley DB XML edition

Secondary indexes

restricted

Knowledge Grid Technology used instead

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

does not fully support an SQL-standard

yes

SQL interfaced based on SQLite is available

SQL-like query language

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

GraphQL
RESTful HTTP API
WebSocket

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

.Net
C
C#
C++
D
Eiffel
Erlang
Haskell
Java
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scheme
Tcl

.Net

Figaro is a .Net framework assembly that extends Berkeley DB XML into an embeddable database engine for .NET
others

Third-party libraries to manipulate Berkeley DB files are available for many languages
C
C#
C++
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)

3rd party binding
Perl
Python
Tcl

Deno
Go
JavaScript (Node.js)
Rust

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

Triggers

yes

only for the SQL API

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Source-replica replication

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

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

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

exploiting MySQL or PostgreSQL frontend capabilities

yes, based on authentication and database rules

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.