DBMS > AnzoGraph DB vs. Ehcache vs. MySQL

System Properties Comparison AnzoGraph DB vs. Ehcache vs. MySQL

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

A widely adopted Java cache with tiered storage options

Widely used open source RDBMS

Primary database model

Graph DBMS
RDF store

Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Key/Value like access via memcached API

Secondary database models

Document store
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	0.27
Rank	#302	Overall
	#24	Graph DBMS
	#13	RDF stores

Score	5.23
Rank	#68	Overall
	#8	Key-value stores

Score	1087.72
Rank	#2	Overall
	#2	Relational DBMS

Website

cambridgesemantics.com/anzograph

www.ehcache.org

www.mysql.com

Technical documentation

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

www.ehcache.org/documentation

dev.mysql.com/doc

Developer

Cambridge Semantics

Terracotta Inc, owned by Software AG

Oracle

since 2010, originally MySQL AB, then Sun

Initial release

2018

2009

1995

Current release

2.3, January 2021

3.10.0, March 2022

8.3.0, January 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free trial version available

Open Source

Apache Version 2; commercial licenses available

Open Source

GPL version 2. Commercial licenses with extended functionallity are available

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.

Aiven for MySQL: Fully managed MySQL, deployable in the cloud of your choice, with seamless integrations and lightning-fast setup.

Implementation language

Java

C and C++

Server operating systems

Linux

All OS with a Java VM

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

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

with proprietary extensions

APIs and other access methods

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

JCache

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
Proprietary native API

Supported programming languages

C++
Java
Python

Java

Ada
C
C#
C++
D
Delphi
Eiffel
Erlang
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scheme
Tcl

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions and aggregates

yes

proprietary syntax

Triggers

yes

Cache Event Listeners

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Automatic sharding

Sharding

by using Terracotta Server

horizontal partitioning, sharding with MySQL Cluster or MySQL Fabric

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Multi-source replication in MPP-Cluster

yes

by using Terracotta Server

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

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

Tunable Consistency (Strong, Eventual, Weak)

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

not needed in graphs

yes

not for MyISAM storage engine

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

yes

supports JTA and can work as an XA resource

ACID

not for MyISAM storage engine

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

table locks or row locks depending on storage engine

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

using a tiered cache-storage approach

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

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

no user groups or roles

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.