DBMS > AnzoGraph DB vs. BoltDB vs. Microsoft SQL Server vs. OpenEdge vs. TigerGraph

System Properties Comparison AnzoGraph DB vs. BoltDB vs. Microsoft SQL Server vs. OpenEdge vs. TigerGraph

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

An embedded key-value store for Go.

Microsofts flagship relational DBMS

Application development environment with integrated database management system

A complete, distributed, parallel graph computing platform supporting web-scale data analytics in real-time

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	0.74
Rank	#220	Overall
	#31	Key-value stores

Score	824.29
Rank	#3	Overall
	#3	Relational DBMS

Score	3.51
Rank	#86	Overall
	#46	Relational DBMS

Score	1.83
Rank	#139	Overall
	#13	Graph DBMS

Website

cambridgesemantics.com/anzograph

github.com/boltdb/bolt

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

www.progress.com/openedge

www.tigergraph.com

Technical documentation

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

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

documentation.progress.com/output/ua/OpenEdge_latest

docs.tigergraph.com

Developer

Cambridge Semantics

Microsoft

Progress Software Corporation

Initial release

2018

2013

1989

1984

2017

Current release

2.3, January 2021

SQL Server 2022, November 2022

OpenEdge 12.2, March 2020

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free trial version available

Open Source

MIT License

commercial

restricted free version is available

commercial

Cloud-based only

Only available as a cloud service

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

BSD
Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

Linux
Windows

AIX
HP-UX
Linux
Solaris
Windows

Linux

Data scheme

Schema-free and OWL/RDFS-schema support

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

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

yes

close to SQL 92

SQL-like query language (GSQL)

APIs and other access methods

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

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

JDBC
ODBC

GSQL (TigerGraph Query Language)
Kafka
RESTful HTTP/JSON API

Supported programming languages

C++
Java
Python

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

Progress proprietary ABL (Advanced Business Language)

C++
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions and aggregates

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

yes

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Automatic sharding

none

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

horizontal partitioning

since Version 11.4

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Multi-source replication in MPP-Cluster

none

yes, but depending on the SQL-Server Edition

Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Kerberos/HDFS data loading

yes

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

Relationships in graphs

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

yes

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

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

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

Users and groups

Role-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.