DBMS > AnzoGraph DB vs. EJDB vs. FatDB vs. Snowflake

System Properties Comparison AnzoGraph DB vs. EJDB vs. FatDB vs. Snowflake

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

FatDB/FatCloud has ceased operations as a company with February 2014. FatDB is discontinued and excluded from the ranking.

Description

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

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

A .NET NoSQL DBMS that can integrate with and extend SQL Server.

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

Primary database model

Graph DBMS
RDF store

Document store

Document store
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

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	130.36
Rank	#8	Overall
	#5	Relational DBMS

Website

cambridgesemantics.com/anzograph

github.com/Softmotions/ejdb

www.snowflake.com

Technical documentation

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

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

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

Cambridge Semantics

Softmotions

FatCloud

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Initial release

2018

2012

2014

Current release

2.3, January 2021

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free trial version available

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

Server operating systems

Linux

server-less

Windows

hosted

Data scheme

Schema-free and OWL/RDFS-schema support

schema-free

yes

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

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.

yes

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

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

Via inetgration in SQL Server

yes

APIs and other access methods

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

in-process shared library

.NET Client API
LINQ
RESTful HTTP API
RPC
Windows WCF Bindings

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

C++
Java
Python

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

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions and aggregates

yes

via applications

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

via applications

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Automatic sharding

none

Sharding

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Multi-source replication in MPP-Cluster

none

selectable replication factor

yes

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

Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

not needed in graphs

typically not needed, however similar functionality with collection joins possible

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

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

Can implement custom security layer via applications

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

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.