DBMS > AnzoGraph DB vs. CrateDB vs. Prometheus vs. SQLite

System Properties Comparison AnzoGraph DB vs. CrateDB vs. Prometheus vs. SQLite

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

Distributed Database based on Lucene

Open-source Time Series DBMS and monitoring system

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

Primary database model

Graph DBMS
RDF store

Document store
Spatial DBMS
Search engine
Time Series DBMS
Vector DBMS

Time Series DBMS

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

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	0.73
Rank	#224	Overall
	#37	Document stores
	#5	Spatial DBMS
	#16	Search engines
	#19	Time Series DBMS
	#8	Vector DBMS

Score	8.42
Rank	#47	Overall
	#2	Time Series DBMS

Score	114.32
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Website

cambridgesemantics.com/anzograph

cratedb.com

prometheus.io

www.sqlite.org

Technical documentation

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

cratedb.com/docs

prometheus.io/docs

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

Developer

Cambridge Semantics

Crate

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Initial release

2018

2013

2015

2000

Current release

2.3, January 2021

3.45.3 (15 April 2024), April 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free trial version available

Open Source

Apache 2.0

Open Source

Public Domain

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.

CrateDB Cloud: a distributed SQL database that spreads data and processing across an elastic cluster of shared nothing nodes. CrateDB Cloud enables data insights at scale on Microsoft Azure, AWS and Google Cloud Platform.

Implementation language

Java

Server operating systems

Linux

All Operating Systems, including Kubernetes with CrateDB Kubernetes Operator support

Linux
Windows

server-less

Data scheme

Schema-free and OWL/RDFS-schema support

Flexible Schema (defined schema, partial schema, schema free)

yes

dynamic column types

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

Numeric data only

yes

not rigid because of 'dynamic typing' concept.

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.

Import of XML data possible

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

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

yes, but no triggers and constraints, and PostgreSQL compatibility

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

APIs and other access methods

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

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
PostgreSQL wire protocol
Prometheus Remote Read/Write
RESTful HTTP API

RESTful HTTP/JSON API

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

Supported programming languages

C++
Java
Python

.NET
Erlang
Go

community maintained client
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)

community maintained client
Perl

community maintained client
PHP
Python
R
Ruby

community maintained client
Scala

community maintained client

.Net
C++
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Python
Ruby

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

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions and aggregates

user defined functions (Javascript)

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Automatic sharding

Sharding

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Multi-source replication in MPP-Cluster

Configurable replication on table/partition-level

yes

by Federation

none

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

Eventual Consistency
Read-after-write consistency on record level

none

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

not needed in graphs

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

unique row identifiers can be used for implementing an optimistic concurrency control strategy

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

via file-system locks

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

rights management via user accounts

More information provided by the system vendor

Specific characteristics

The enterprise database for time series, documents, and vectors. Distributed - Native...
» more

Competitive advantages

Response time in milliseconds: e ven for complex ad-hoc queries. Massive scaling...
» more

Typical application scenarios

IoT: accelerate your IIoT projects with CrateDB, delivering real-time analytics...
» more

Key customers

Across all continents, CrateDB is used by companies of all sizes to meet the most...
» more

Market metrics

The CrateDB open source project was started in 2013 Honorable Mention in 2021 Gartner®...
» more

Licensing and pricing models

See CrateDB pricing >
» more

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.