DBMS > AnzoGraph DB vs. Drizzle vs. EJDB vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage

System Properties Comparison AnzoGraph DB vs. Drizzle vs. EJDB vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Drizzle has published its last release in September 2012. The open-source project is discontinued and Drizzle is excluded 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

MySQL fork with a pluggable micro-kernel and with an emphasis of performance over compatibility.

Embeddable document-store database library with JSON representation of queries (in MongoDB style)

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

Primary database model

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

Score	0.29
Rank	#303	Overall
	#25	Graph DBMS
	#14	RDF stores

Score	0.31
Rank	#296	Overall
	#44	Document stores

Score	4.04
Rank	#77	Overall
	#6	Wide column stores

Website

cambridgesemantics.com/anzograph

github.com/Softmotions/ejdb

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

Technical documentation

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

github.com/Softmotions/ejdb/blob/master/README.md

Developer

Cambridge Semantics

Drizzle project, originally started by Brian Aker

Softmotions

Microsoft

Initial release

2018

2008

2012

Current release

2.3, January 2021

7.2.4, September 2012

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free trial version available

Open Source

GNU GPL

Open Source

GPLv2

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

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X

server-less

hosted

Data scheme

Schema-free and OWL/RDFS-schema support

yes

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

string, integer, double, bool, date, object_id

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

SQL

Support of SQL

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

yes

with proprietary extensions

APIs and other access methods

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

JDBC

in-process shared library

RESTful HTTP API

Supported programming languages

C++
Java
Python

C
C++
Java
PHP

Actionscript
C
C#
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Lua
Objective-C
Pike
Python
Ruby

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

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions and aggregates

Triggers

hooks for callbacks inside the server can be used.

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Automatic sharding

Sharding

none

Sharding

Implicit feature of the cloud service

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Multi-source replication in MPP-Cluster

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

none

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

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

typically not needed, however similar functionality with collection joins possible

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

optimistic locking

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Read/Write Locking

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

Pluggable authentication mechanisms

e.g. LDAP, HTTP

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.

Related products and services

We invite representatives of vendors of related products to contact us for presenting information about their offerings here.

More resources

DB-Engines blog posts

MySQL won the April ranking; did its forks follow?
1 April 2015, Paul Andlinger

Has MySQL finally lost its mojo?
1 July 2013, Matthias Gelbmann

show all

Recent citations in the news

AnzoGraph review: A graph database for deep analytics
15 April 2019, InfoWorld

AnzoGraph: A W3C Standards-Based Graph Database | by Jo Stichbury
8 February 2019, Towards Data Science

Cambridge Semantics Fits AnzoGraph DB with More Speed, Free Access
23 January 2020, Solutions Review

Back to the future: Does graph database success hang on query language?
5 March 2018, ZDNet

Is The Enterprise Knowledge Graph Finally Going To Make All Data Usable?
19 September 2018, Forbes

provided by Google News

Working with Azure to Use and Manage Data Lakes
7 March 2024, Simplilearn

How to Use C# Azure.Data.Tables SDK with Azure Cosmos DB
9 July 2021, hackernoon.com

How to use Azure Table storage in .Net
14 January 2019, InfoWorld

How to write data to Azure Table Store with an Azure Function
14 April 2017, Experts Exchange

Inside Azure File Storage
7 October 2015, azure.microsoft.com

provided by Google News

Share this page