DBMS > AnzoGraph DB vs. BigObject vs. DuckDB vs. Snowflake

System Properties Comparison AnzoGraph DB vs. BigObject vs. DuckDB vs. Snowflake

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

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 real-time computations and queries

An embeddable, in-process, column-oriented SQL OLAP RDBMS

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

Primary database model

Graph DBMS
RDF store

Relational DBMS

a hierachical model (tree) can be imposed

Relational DBMS

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

Score	0.23
Rank	#307	Overall
	#24	Graph DBMS
	#13	RDF stores

Score	0.13
Rank	#333	Overall
	#147	Relational DBMS

Score	4.57
Rank	#74	Overall
	#40	Relational DBMS

Score	121.33
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Website

cambridgesemantics.com/anzograph

bigobject.io

duckdb.org

www.snowflake.com

Technical documentation

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

docs.bigobject.io

duckdb.org/docs

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

Cambridge Semantics

BigObject, Inc.

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Initial release

2018

2015

2018

2014

Current release

2.3, January 2021

0.10, February 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free trial version available

commercial

free community edition available

Open Source

MIT License

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++

Server operating systems

Linux

distributed as a docker-image
OS X

distributed as a docker-image (boot2docker)
Windows

distributed as a docker-image (boot2docker)

server-less

hosted

Data scheme

Schema-free and OWL/RDFS-schema support

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

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

SQL-like DML and DDL statements

yes

APIs and other access methods

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

fluentd
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

Arrow Database Connectivity (ADBC)
CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

C++
Java
Python

C
C#

3rd party driver
C++
Crystal

3rd party driver
Go

3rd party driver
Java
Lisp

3rd party driver
Python
R
Ruby

3rd party driver
Rust
Swift
Zig

3rd party driver

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions and aggregates

Lua

user defined functions

Triggers

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Automatic sharding

none

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Multi-source replication in MPP-Cluster

none

yes

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Kerberos/HDFS data loading

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency in MPP-Cluster

none

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

not needed in graphs

yes

automatically between fact table and dimension tables

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Read/write lock on objects (tables, trees)

yes, multi-version concurrency control (MVCC)

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

Access rights for users and roles

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.