DBMS > AnzoGraph DB vs. Dragonfly vs. JaguarDB vs. Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage

System Properties Comparison AnzoGraph DB vs. Dragonfly vs. JaguarDB vs. Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage

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

A drop-in Redis replacement that scales vertically to support millions of operations per second and terabyte sized workloads, all on a single instance

Performant, highly scalable DBMS for AI and IoT applications

Globally distributed, horizontally scalable, multi-model database service

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

Primary database model

Graph DBMS
RDF store

Key-value store

Key-value store
Vector DBMS

Document store
Graph DBMS
Key-value store
Wide column store

Wide column store

Secondary database models

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	0.41
Rank	#266	Overall
	#38	Key-value stores

Score	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#60	Key-value stores
	#13	Vector DBMS

Score	29.04
Rank	#27	Overall
	#4	Document stores
	#2	Graph DBMS
	#3	Key-value stores
	#3	Wide column stores

Score	4.48
Rank	#75	Overall
	#6	Wide column stores

Website

cambridgesemantics.com/anzograph

github.com/dragonflydb/dragonfly
www.dragonflydb.io

www.jaguardb.com

azure.microsoft.com/services/cosmos-db

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

Technical documentation

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

www.dragonflydb.io/docs

www.jaguardb.com/support.html

learn.microsoft.com/azure/cosmos-db

Developer

Cambridge Semantics

DragonflyDB team and community contributors

DataJaguar, Inc.

Microsoft

Initial release

2018

2023

2015

2014

2012

Current release

2.3, January 2021

1.0, March 2023

3.3 July 2023

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free trial version available

Open Source

BSL 1.1

Open Source

GPL V3.0

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++

the server part. Clients available in other languages

Server operating systems

Linux

hosted

Data scheme

Schema-free and OWL/RDFS-schema support

scheme-free

yes

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

strings, hashes, lists, sets, sorted sets, bit arrays

yes

JSON types

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.

Secondary indexes

yes

All properties auto-indexed by default

SQL

Support of SQL

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

A subset of ANSI SQL is implemented

but no views, foreign keys, triggers

SQL-like query language

APIs and other access methods

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

Proprietary protocol

RESP - REdis Serialization Protocol

JDBC
ODBC

DocumentDB API
Graph API (Gremlin)
MongoDB API
RESTful HTTP API
Table API

RESTful HTTP API

Supported programming languages

C++
Java
Python

C
C#
C++
Clojure
D
Dart
Elixir
Erlang
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Lisp
Lua
Objective-C
Perl
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Rust
Scala
Swift
Tcl

C
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scala

.Net
C#
Java
JavaScript
JavaScript (Node.js)
MongoDB client drivers written for various programming languages
Python

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

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions and aggregates

Lua

JavaScript

Triggers

publish/subscribe channels provide some trigger functionality

JavaScript

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Automatic sharding

Sharding

Implicit feature of the cloud service

Sharding

Implicit feature of the cloud service

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Multi-source replication in MPP-Cluster

Source-replica replication

Multi-source replication

yes

Implicit feature of the cloud service

yes

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

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Kerberos/HDFS data loading

with Hadoop integration

Integration with Hadoop/HDInsight on Azure*

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency in MPP-Cluster

Eventual Consistency

Bounded Staleness
Consistent Prefix
Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

Consistency level configurable on request level
Session Consistency

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

not needed in graphs

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Atomic execution of command blocks and scripts

Multi-item ACID transactions with snapshot isolation within a partition

optimistic locking

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

yes, strict serializability by the server

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

Password-based authentication

rights management via user accounts

Access rights can be defined down to the item level

Access rights based on private key authentication or shared access signatures

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.