DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. MonetDB vs. RavenDB vs. TigerGraph

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. MonetDB vs. RavenDB vs. TigerGraph

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

A relational database management system that stores data in columns

Open Source Operational and Transactional Enterprise NoSQL Document Database

A complete, distributed, parallel graph computing platform supporting web-scale data analytics in real-time

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Document store

Graph DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
Spatial DBMS

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	1.72
Rank	#145	Overall
	#67	Relational DBMS

Score	2.92
Rank	#101	Overall
	#18	Document stores

Score	1.83
Rank	#139	Overall
	#13	Graph DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

www.monetdb.org

ravendb.net

www.tigergraph.com

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

www.monetdb.org/Documentation

ravendb.net/docs

docs.tigergraph.com

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

MonetDB BV

Hibernating Rhinos

Initial release

2012

2004

2010

2017

Current release

Dec2023 (11.49), December 2023

5.4, July 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Mozilla Public License 2.0

Open Source

AGPL version 3, commercial license available

commercial

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

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

Linux
macOS
Raspberry Pi
Windows

Linux

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

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

SQL 2003 with some extensions

SQL-like query language (RQL)

SQL-like query language (GSQL)

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

JDBC
native C library

MAPI library (MonetDB application programming interface)
ODBC

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

GSQL (TigerGraph Query Language)
Kafka
RESTful HTTP/JSON API

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

C
C++
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Perl
PHP
Python
R
Ruby

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

C++
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

yes, in SQL, C, R

yes

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

Sharding via remote tables

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

none

Source-replica replication available in experimental status

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

yes

Relationships in graphs

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

ACID, Cluster-wide transaction available

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

Authorization levels configured per client per database

Role-based access control

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.