DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. OrigoDB vs. TempoIQ vs. TimesTen vs. Transbase

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. OrigoDB vs. TempoIQ vs. TimesTen vs. Transbase

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

TempoIQ seems to be decommissioned. It will be removed from the DB-Engines ranking.

Description

Large scale data warehouse service for use with business intelligence tools

A fully ACID in-memory object graph database

Scalable analytics DBMS for sensor data, provided as a service (SaaS)

In-Memory RDBMS compatible to Oracle

A resource-optimized, high-performance, universally applicable RDBMS

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Document store
Object oriented DBMS

Time Series DBMS

Relational DBMS

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

Score	16.88
Rank	#35	Overall
	#22	Relational DBMS

Score	0.06
Rank	#380	Overall
	#50	Document stores
	#18	Object oriented DBMS

Score	1.36
Rank	#161	Overall
	#75	Relational DBMS

Score	0.17
Rank	#334	Overall
	#148	Relational DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

origodb.com

tempoiq.com (offline)

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

www.transaction.de/en/products/transbase.html

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

origodb.com/docs

docs.oracle.com/database/timesten-18.1

www.transaction.de/en/products/transbase/features.html

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

Robert Friberg et al

TempoIQ

Oracle, TimesTen Performance Software, HP

originally founded in HP Labs it was acquired by Oracle in 2005

Transaction Software GmbH

Initial release

2012

2009

under the name LiveDB

2012

1998

1987

Current release

11 Release 2 (11.2.2.8.0)

Transbase 8.3, 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

commercial

free development license

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 and C++

Server operating systems

hosted

Linux
Windows

AIX
HP-UX
Linux
OS X
Solaris SPARC/x86
Windows

FreeBSD
Linux
macOS
Solaris
Windows

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

User defined using .NET types and collections

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.

can be achieved using .NET

Secondary indexes

restricted

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

does not fully support an SQL-standard

yes

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

.NET Client API
HTTP API
LINQ

HTTP API

JDBC
ODBC
ODP.NET
Oracle Call Interface (OCI)

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
Proprietary native API

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

.Net

C#
Java
JavaScript

Node.js
Python
Ruby

C
C++
Java
PL/SQL

C
C#
C++
Java
JavaScript
Kotlin
Objective-C
PHP
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

yes

PL/SQL

yes

Triggers

yes

Domain Events

yes

Realtime Alerts

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

horizontal partitioning

client side managed; servers are not synchronized

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Source-replica replication

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

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

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

informational only, not enforced by the system

depending on model

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

yes

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

Write ahead log

yes

by means of logfiles and checkpoints

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

simple authentication-based access control

fine grained access rights 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.