DBMS > 4D vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Drizzle vs. Snowflake vs. TigerGraph

System Properties Comparison 4D vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Drizzle vs. Snowflake vs. TigerGraph

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

This system has been discontinued and will be removed from the DB-Engines ranking.

Drizzle has published its last release in September 2012. The open-source project is discontinued and Drizzle is excluded from the DB-Engines ranking.

Description

Application development environment with integrated database management system

Highly scalable database system, designed for managing session and subscriber data in modern mobile communication networks

MySQL fork with a pluggable micro-kernel and with an emphasis of performance over compatibility.

Cloud-based data warehousing service for structured and semi-structured data

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

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Document store
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Graph DBMS

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

Score	2.68
Rank	#110	Overall
	#54	Relational DBMS

Score	123.20
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Score	1.83
Rank	#141	Overall
	#13	Graph DBMS

Website

www.4d.com

atos.net/en/convergence-creators/portfolio/standard-common-repository

www.snowflake.com

www.tigergraph.com

Technical documentation

developer.4d.com

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

docs.tigergraph.com

Developer

4D, Inc

Atos Convergence Creators

Drizzle project, originally started by Brian Aker

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Initial release

1984

2016

2008

2014

2017

Current release

v20, April 2023

1703

7.2.4, September 2012

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

GNU GPL

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

Java

C++

Server operating systems

OS X
Windows

Linux

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X

hosted

Linux

Data scheme

yes

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

yes

support of semi-structured data formats (JSON, XML, Avro)

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

optional

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.

yes

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

close to SQL 92

yes

with proprietary extensions

yes

SQL-like query language (GSQL)

APIs and other access methods

ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

by using 4D Mobile
SOAP webservices

LDAP

JDBC

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

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

Supported programming languages

4D proprietary IDE
PHP

All languages with LDAP bindings

C
C++
Java
PHP

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

C++
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

user defined functions

yes

Triggers

yes

hooks for callbacks inside the server can be used.

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

Sharding

cell division

Sharding

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Multi-source replication

yes

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

yes

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

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

Relationships in graphs

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Atomic execution of specific operations

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

Users and groups

LDAP bind authentication

Pluggable authentication mechanisms

e.g. LDAP, HTTP

Users with fine-grained authorization concept, user roles and pluggable authentication

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.