DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. JaguarDB vs. Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. Qdrant

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. JaguarDB vs. Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. Qdrant

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

Large scale data warehouse service for use with business intelligence tools

Performant, highly scalable DBMS for AI and IoT applications

Globally distributed, horizontally scalable, multi-model database service

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

A high-performance vector database with neural network or semantic-based matching

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Key-value store
Vector DBMS

Document store
Graph DBMS
Key-value store
Wide column store

Wide column store

Vector DBMS

Secondary database models

Spatial DBMS

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

Score	19.03
Rank	#34	Overall
	#21	Relational DBMS

Score	0.09
Rank	#356	Overall
	#53	Key-value stores
	#13	Vector DBMS

Score	29.85
Rank	#27	Overall
	#4	Document stores
	#2	Graph DBMS
	#3	Key-value stores
	#3	Wide column stores

Score	4.92
Rank	#73	Overall
	#6	Wide column stores

Score	1.23
Rank	#171	Overall
	#6	Vector DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

www.jaguardb.com

azure.microsoft.com/services/cosmos-db

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

github.com/qdrant/qdrant
qdrant.tech

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

www.jaguardb.com/support.html

learn.microsoft.com/azure/cosmos-db

qdrant.tech/documentation

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

DataJaguar, Inc.

Microsoft

Qdrant

Initial release

2012

2015

2014

2012

2021

Current release

3.3 July 2023

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

GPL V3.0

commercial

Open Source

Apache Version 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

C++

the server part. Clients available in other languages

Rust

Server operating systems

hosted

Linux

hosted

Docker
Linux
macOS
Windows

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

JSON types

yes

Numbers, Strings, Geo, Boolean

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

All properties auto-indexed by default

yes

Keywords, numberic ranges, geo, full-text

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

does not fully support an SQL-standard

A subset of ANSI SQL is implemented

but no views, foreign keys, triggers

SQL-like query language

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

DocumentDB API
Graph API (Gremlin)
MongoDB API
RESTful HTTP API
Table API

RESTful HTTP API

gRPC
OpenAPI 3.0
RESTful HTTP/JSON API

OpenAPI 3.0

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

C
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scala

.Net
C#
Java
JavaScript
JavaScript (Node.js)
MongoDB client drivers written for various programming languages
Python

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

.Net
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Python
Rust

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

JavaScript

Triggers

JavaScript

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

Implicit feature of the cloud service

Sharding

Implicit feature of the cloud service

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Multi-source replication

yes

Implicit feature of the cloud service

yes

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

Collection-level replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

with Hadoop integration

Integration with Hadoop/HDInsight on Azure*

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Eventual Consistency

Bounded Staleness
Consistent Prefix
Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

Consistency level configurable on request level
Session Consistency

Immediate Consistency

Eventual Consistency, tunable 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

Multi-item ACID transactions with snapshot isolation within a partition

optimistic locking

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

rights management via user accounts

Access rights can be defined down to the item level

Access rights based on private key authentication or shared access signatures

Key-based 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.