DBMS > Amazon Redshift vs. etcd vs. RethinkDB vs. TinkerGraph

System Properties Comparison Amazon Redshift vs. etcd vs. RethinkDB vs. TinkerGraph

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 distributed reliable key-value store

DBMS for the Web with a mechanism to push updated query results to applications in realtime.

A lightweight, in-memory graph engine that serves as a reference implementation of the TinkerPop3 API

Primary database model

Secondary database models

Spatial DBMS

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

Score	17.94
Rank	#34	Overall
	#21	Relational DBMS

Score	7.25
Rank	#54	Overall
	#5	Key-value stores

Score	2.74
Rank	#105	Overall
	#19	Document stores

Score	0.08
Rank	#348	Overall
	#35	Graph DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/redshift

etcd.io
github.com/etcd-io/etcd

rethinkdb.com

tinkerpop.apache.org/docs/current/reference/#tinkergraph-gremlin

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift

etcd.io/docs
github.com/etcd-io/etcd/tree/master/Documentation

rethinkdb.com/docs

Developer

Amazon (based on PostgreSQL)

The Linux Foundation

since July 2017

Initial release

2012

2009

Current release

3.4, August 2019

2.4.1, August 2020

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0

Open Source

Apache Version 2

Open Source

Apache 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++

Java

Server operating systems

hosted

FreeBSD
Linux
Windows

experimental

Linux
OS X
Windows

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

string, binary, float, bool, date, geometry

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

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

gRPC
JSON over HTTP

TinkerPop 3

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

.Net
C
C++
Clojure
Erlang
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Perl
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Rust
Scala
Tcl

community-supported driver
C#

community-supported driver
C++

community-supported driver
Clojure

community-supported driver
Dart

community-supported driver
Erlang

community-supported driver
Go

community-supported driver
Haskell

community-supported driver
Java

official driver
JavaScript (Node.js)

official driver
Lisp

community-supported driver
Lua

community-supported driver
Objective-C

community-supported driver
Perl

community-supported driver
PHP

community-supported driver
Python

official driver
Ruby

official driver
Scala

community-supported driver

Groovy
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in Python

Triggers

yes, watching key changes

Client-side triggers through changefeeds

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

range based

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Using Raft consensus algorithm to ensure data replication with strong consistency among multiple replicas.

Source-replica replication

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

none

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

Atomic single-document operations

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

MVCC based

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

optional

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 and table-level permissions

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.