DBMS > Amazon Aurora vs. BigObject vs. Google Cloud Bigtable vs. Kinetica vs. Microsoft SQL Server

System Properties Comparison Amazon Aurora vs. BigObject vs. Google Cloud Bigtable vs. Kinetica vs. Microsoft SQL Server

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

MySQL and PostgreSQL compatible cloud service by Amazon

Analytic DBMS for real-time computations and queries

Google's NoSQL Big Data database service. It's the same database that powers many core Google services, including Search, Analytics, Maps, and Gmail.

Fully vectorized database across both GPUs and CPUs

Microsofts flagship relational DBMS

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

a hierachical model (tree) can be imposed

Key-value store
Wide column store

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store

Spatial DBMS
Time Series DBMS

Document store
Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	8.50
Rank	#49	Overall
	#31	Relational DBMS

Score	0.13
Rank	#342	Overall
	#150	Relational DBMS

Score	3.58
Rank	#92	Overall
	#14	Key-value stores
	#8	Wide column stores

Score	0.69
Rank	#234	Overall
	#107	Relational DBMS

Score	829.80
Rank	#3	Overall
	#3	Relational DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/rds/aurora

bigobject.io

cloud.google.com/bigtable

www.kinetica.com

www.microsoft.com/en-us/sql-server

Technical documentation

docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/AuroraUserGuide/CHAP_Aurora.html

docs.bigobject.io

cloud.google.com/bigtable/docs

docs.kinetica.com

learn.microsoft.com/en-US/sql/sql-server

Developer

Amazon

BigObject, Inc.

Google

Kinetica

Microsoft

Initial release

2015

2012

1989

Current release

7.1, August 2021

SQL Server 2022, November 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free community edition available

commercial

restricted free version is available

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, C++

C++

Server operating systems

hosted

Linux

distributed as a docker-image
OS X

distributed as a docker-image (boot2docker)
Windows

distributed as a docker-image (boot2docker)

hosted

Linux

Linux
Windows

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.

yes

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

SQL-like DML and DDL statements

yes

APIs and other access methods

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

fluentd
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

gRPC (using protocol buffers) API
HappyBase (Python library)
HBase compatible API (Java)

JDBC
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
OLE DB
Tabular Data Stream (TDS)

Supported programming languages

Ada
C
C#
C++
D
Delphi
Eiffel
Erlang
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scheme
Tcl

C#
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

C++
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

C#
C++
Delphi
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Visual Basic

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Lua

user defined functions

Transact SQL, .NET languages, R, Python and (with SQL Server 2019) Java

Triggers

yes

triggers when inserted values for one or more columns fall within a specified range

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

horizontal partitioning

none

Sharding

tables can be distributed across several files (horizontal partitioning); sharding through federation

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Source-replica replication

none

Internal replication in Colossus, and regional replication between two clusters in different zones

Source-replica replication

yes, but depending on the SQL-Server Edition

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

none

Immediate consistency (for a single cluster), Eventual consistency (for two or more replicated clusters)

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

automatically between fact table and dimension tables

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Atomic single-row operations

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Read/write lock on objects (tables, trees)

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

GPU vRAM or System RAM

yes

User concepts

Access control

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

Access rights for users, groups and roles based on Google Cloud Identity and Access Management (IAM)

Access rights for users and roles on table level

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.