DBMS > AnzoGraph DB vs. Apache Impala vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. Snowflake vs. XTDB

System Properties Comparison AnzoGraph DB vs. Apache Impala vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. Snowflake vs. XTDB

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

Scalable graph database built for online analytics and data harmonization with MPP scaling, high-performance analytical algorithms and reasoning, and virtualization

Analytic DBMS for Hadoop

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

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

A general purpose database with bitemporal SQL and Datalog and graph queries

Primary database model

Secondary database models

Document store

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

Score	0.29
Rank	#303	Overall
	#25	Graph DBMS
	#14	RDF stores

Score	12.45
Rank	#40	Overall
	#24	Relational DBMS

Score	4.04
Rank	#77	Overall
	#6	Wide column stores

Score	130.36
Rank	#8	Overall
	#5	Relational DBMS

Score	0.18
Rank	#332	Overall
	#46	Document stores

Website

cambridgesemantics.com/anzograph

impala.apache.org

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

www.snowflake.com

github.com/xtdb/xtdb
www.xtdb.com

Technical documentation

docs.cambridgesemantics.com/anzograph/userdoc/home.htm

impala.apache.org/impala-docs.html

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

www.xtdb.com/docs

Developer

Cambridge Semantics

Apache Software Foundation

Apache top-level project, originally developed by Cloudera

Microsoft

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Juxt Ltd.

Initial release

2018

2013

2012

2014

2019

Current release

2.3, January 2021

4.1.0, June 2022

1.19, September 2021

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free trial version available

Open Source

Apache Version 2

commercial

Open Source

MIT License

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++

Clojure

Server operating systems

Linux

hosted

All OS with a Java 8 (and higher) VM
Linux

Data scheme

Schema-free and OWL/RDFS-schema support

yes

schema-free

yes

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

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

yes, extensible-data-notation format

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

SPARQL and SPARQL* as primary query language. Cypher preview.

SQL-like DML and DDL statements

yes

limited SQL, making use of Apache Calcite

APIs and other access methods

Apache Mule
gRPC
JDBC
Kafka
OData access for BI tools
OpenCypher
RESTful HTTP API
SPARQL

JDBC
ODBC

RESTful HTTP API

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

HTTP REST
JDBC

Supported programming languages

C++
Java
Python

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC

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

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Clojure
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions and aggregates

yes

user defined functions and integration of map-reduce

user defined functions

Triggers

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Automatic sharding

Sharding

Implicit feature of the cloud service

yes

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Multi-source replication in MPP-Cluster

selectable replication factor

yes

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

yes

yes, each node contains all data

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Kerberos/HDFS data loading

yes

query execution via MapReduce

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency in MPP-Cluster

Eventual Consistency

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

not needed in graphs

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

yes, flexibel persistency by using storage technologies like Apache Kafka, RocksDB or LMDB

In-memory capabilities

Is there an option to define some or all structures to be held in-memory only.

yes

User concepts

Access control

Access rights for users and roles

Access rights for users, groups and roles

based on Apache Sentry and Kerberos

Access rights based on private key authentication or shared access signatures

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.