DBMS > AnzoGraph DB vs. BigchainDB vs. Microsoft Azure SQL Database vs. Snowflake vs. TempoIQ

System Properties Comparison AnzoGraph DB vs. BigchainDB vs. Microsoft Azure SQL Database vs. Snowflake vs. TempoIQ

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

TempoIQ seems to be decommissioned. It will be removed from the DB-Engines ranking.

Description

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

BigchainDB is scalable blockchain database offering decentralization, immutability and native assets

Database as a Service offering with high compatibility to Microsoft SQL Server

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

Scalable analytics DBMS for sensor data, provided as a service (SaaS)

Primary database model

Secondary database models

Document store
Graph DBMS
Spatial 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	0.79
Rank	#212	Overall
	#36	Document stores

Score	77.99
Rank	#16	Overall
	#11	Relational DBMS

Score	121.33
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Website

cambridgesemantics.com/anzograph

www.bigchaindb.com

azure.microsoft.com/en-us/products/azure-sql/database

www.snowflake.com

tempoiq.com (offline)

Technical documentation

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

bigchaindb.readthedocs.io/en/latest

docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-sql

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

Cambridge Semantics

Microsoft

Snowflake Computing Inc.

TempoIQ

Initial release

2018

2016

2010

2014

2012

Current release

2.3, January 2021

V12

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free trial version available

Open Source

AGPL v3

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

Python

C++

Server operating systems

Linux

hosted

Data scheme

Schema-free and OWL/RDFS-schema support

schema-free

yes

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

schema-free

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.

yes

APIs and other access methods

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

CLI Client
RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

HTTP API

Supported programming languages

C++
Java
Python

Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript
Python
Ruby

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

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

C#
Java
JavaScript

Node.js
Python
Ruby

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions and aggregates

Transact SQL

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

similar concept for controling cloud resources

yes

Realtime Alerts

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Automatic sharding

Sharding

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Multi-source replication in MPP-Cluster

selectable replication factor

yes, with always 3 replicas available

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

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

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

yes,with MongoDB ord RethinkDB

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

yes

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

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

simple authentication-based access control

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.