DBMS > AgensGraph vs. JaguarDB vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. OpenQM vs. Snowflake

System Properties Comparison AgensGraph vs. JaguarDB vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. OpenQM vs. Snowflake

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

Multi-model database supporting relational and graph data models and built upon PostgreSQL

Performant, highly scalable DBMS for AI and IoT applications

A Wide Column Store for rapid development using massive semi-structured datasets

QpenQM is a high-performance, self-tuning, multi-value DBMS

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

Primary database model

Graph DBMS
Relational DBMS

Key-value store
Vector DBMS

Wide column store

Multivalue DBMS

Relational DBMS

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

Score	0.23
Rank	#315	Overall
	#26	Graph DBMS
	#140	Relational DBMS

Score	0.06
Rank	#381	Overall
	#59	Key-value stores
	#14	Vector DBMS

Score	4.04
Rank	#77	Overall
	#6	Wide column stores

Score	0.34
Rank	#284	Overall
	#10	Multivalue DBMS

Score	130.36
Rank	#8	Overall
	#5	Relational DBMS

Website

bitnine.net/agensgraph

www.jaguardb.com

azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/storage/tables

www.rocketsoftware.com/products/rocket-multivalue-application-development-platform/rocket-open-qm

www.snowflake.com

Technical documentation

bitnine.net/documentation

www.jaguardb.com/support.html

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

Bitnine Global Inc.

DataJaguar, Inc.

Microsoft

Rocket Software, originally Martin Phillips

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Initial release

2016

2015

2012

1993

2014

Current release

2.1, December 2018

3.3 July 2023

3.4-12

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache License 2.0

Open Source

GPL V3.0

commercial

Open Source

GPLv2, extended 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++

the server part. Clients available in other languages

Server operating systems

Linux
OS X
Windows

Linux

hosted

AIX
FreeBSD
Linux
macOS
Raspberry Pi
Solaris
Windows

hosted

Data scheme

depending on used data model

yes

schema-free

yes

with some exceptions

yes

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

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.

yes

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

A subset of ANSI SQL is implemented

but no views, foreign keys, triggers

yes

APIs and other access methods

Cypher Query Language
JDBC

JDBC
ODBC

RESTful HTTP API

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

C
Java
JavaScript
Python

C
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scala

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

.Net
Basic
C
Java
Objective C
PHP
Python

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

no, but can be realized using table inheritance

Sharding

Implicit feature of the cloud service

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Source-replica replication

Multi-source replication

yes

implicit feature of the cloud service. Replication either local, cross-facility or geo-redundant.

yes

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Eventual Consistency

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

optimistic locking

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.

User concepts

Access control

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

rights management via user accounts

Access rights based on private key authentication or shared access signatures

Access rights can be defined down to the item level

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

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.