DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. Microsoft Azure Synapse Analytics vs. PlanetScale vs. Splice Machine

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. Microsoft Azure Synapse Analytics vs. PlanetScale vs. Splice Machine

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

Elastic, large scale data warehouse service leveraging the broad eco-system of SQL Server

Scalable, distributed, serverless MySQL database platform built on top of Vitess

Open-Source SQL RDBMS for Operational and Analytical use cases with native Machine Learning, powered by Hadoop and Spark

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	17.94
Rank	#34	Overall
	#21	Relational DBMS

Score	20.56
Rank	#31	Overall
	#19	Relational DBMS

Score	1.59
Rank	#151	Overall
	#70	Relational DBMS

Score	0.54
Rank	#250	Overall
	#114	Relational DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

azure.microsoft.com/services/synapse-analytics

planetscale.com

splicemachine.com

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

docs.microsoft.com/azure/synapse-analytics

planetscale.com/docs

splicemachine.com/how-it-works

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

Microsoft

PlanetScale

Splice Machine

Initial release

2012

2016

2020

2014

Current release

3.1, March 2021

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

AGPL 3.0, 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++

Java

Server operating systems

hosted

Docker
Linux
macOS

Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

Data scheme

yes

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.

Secondary indexes

restricted

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

does not fully support an SQL-standard

yes

with proprietary extensions

yes

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

ADO.NET
JDBC
MySQL protocol
ODBC

JDBC
Native Spark Datasource
ODBC

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

C#
Java
PHP

Ada
C
C#
C++
D
Delphi
Eiffel
Erlang
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scheme
Tcl

C#
C++
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Python
R
Scala

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

Transact SQL

yes

proprietary syntax

yes

Java

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

Sharding, horizontal partitioning

Sharding

Shared Nothhing Auto-Sharding, Columnar Partitioning

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Yes, via Full Spark Integration

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Eventual Consistency across shards
Immediate Consistency within a shard

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

informational only, not enforced by the system

docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/synapse-analytics/sql-data-warehouse/sql-data-warehouse-table-constraints

yes

not for MyISAM storage engine

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

ACID at shard level

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

table locks or row locks depending on storage engine

yes, multi-version concurrency control (MVCC)

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

yes

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

no user groups or roles

Access rights for users, groups and roles 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.