DBMS > Amazon Aurora vs. Blueflood vs. FatDB vs. SQLite vs. TinkerGraph

System Properties Comparison Amazon Aurora vs. Blueflood vs. FatDB vs. SQLite vs. TinkerGraph

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

FatDB/FatCloud has ceased operations as a company with February 2014. FatDB is discontinued and excluded from the ranking.

Description

MySQL and PostgreSQL compatible cloud service by Amazon

Scalable TimeSeries DBMS based on Cassandra

A .NET NoSQL DBMS that can integrate with and extend SQL Server.

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

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

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Time Series DBMS

Document store
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Graph DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store

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

Score	7.57
Rank	#51	Overall
	#32	Relational DBMS

Score	0.13
Rank	#346	Overall
	#33	Time Series DBMS

Score	111.41
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Score	0.13
Rank	#345	Overall
	#35	Graph DBMS

Website

aws.amazon.com/rds/aurora

blueflood.io

www.sqlite.org

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

Technical documentation

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

github.com/rax-maas/blueflood/wiki

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

Developer

Amazon

Rackspace

FatCloud

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Initial release

2015

2013

2012

2000

2009

Current release

3.46.0 (23 May 2024), May 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache 2.0

commercial

Open Source

Public Domain

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

Java

Server operating systems

hosted

Linux
OS X

Windows

server-less

Data scheme

yes

predefined scheme

schema-free

yes

dynamic column types

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

not rigid because of 'dynamic typing' concept.

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

Via inetgration in SQL Server

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

APIs and other access methods

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

HTTP REST

.NET Client API
LINQ
RESTful HTTP API
RPC
Windows WCF Bindings

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

TinkerPop 3

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

Actionscript
Ada
Basic
C
C#
C++
D
Delphi
Forth
Fortran
Haskell
Java
JavaScript
Lisp
Lua
MatLab
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
PL/SQL
Python
R
Ruby
Scala
Scheme
Smalltalk
Tcl

Groovy
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

via applications

Triggers

yes

via applications

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

horizontal partitioning

Sharding

based on Cassandra

Sharding

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Source-replica replication

selectable replication factor

based on Cassandra

selectable replication factor

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Eventual Consistency

based on Cassandra
Immediate Consistency

based on Cassandra

Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

none

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Relationships in graphs

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

via file-system locks

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

Can implement custom security layer via applications

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.