DBMS > AnzoGraph DB vs. GeoMesa vs. Hyprcubd vs. Microsoft SQL Server vs. Sphinx

System Properties Comparison AnzoGraph DB vs. GeoMesa vs. Hyprcubd vs. Microsoft SQL Server vs. Sphinx

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Hyprcubd seems to be discontinued. Therefore it 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

GeoMesa is a distributed spatio-temporal DBMS based on various systems as storage layer.

Serverless Time Series DBMS

Microsofts flagship relational DBMS

Open source search engine for searching in data from different sources, e.g. relational databases

Primary database model

Secondary database models

Document store
Graph DBMS
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	0.78
Rank	#213	Overall
	#4	Spatial DBMS

Score	824.29
Rank	#3	Overall
	#3	Relational DBMS

Score	5.98
Rank	#56	Overall
	#5	Search engines

Website

cambridgesemantics.com/anzograph

www.geomesa.org

hyprcubd.com (offline)

www.microsoft.com/en-us/sql-server

sphinxsearch.com

Technical documentation

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

www.geomesa.org/documentation/stable/user/index.html

learn.microsoft.com/en-US/sql/sql-server

sphinxsearch.com/docs

Developer

Cambridge Semantics

CCRi and others

Hyprcubd, Inc.

Microsoft

Sphinx Technologies Inc.

Initial release

2018

2014

1989

2001

Current release

2.3, January 2021

4.0.5, February 2024

SQL Server 2022, November 2022

3.5.1, February 2023

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free trial version available

Open Source

Apache License 2.0

commercial

restricted free version is available

Open Source

GPL version 2, commercial licence available

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

Scala

C++

Server operating systems

Linux

hosted

Linux
Windows

FreeBSD
Linux
NetBSD
OS X
Solaris
Windows

Data scheme

Schema-free and OWL/RDFS-schema support

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

time, int, uint, float, string

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

full-text index on all search fields

SQL

Support of SQL

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

SQL-like query language

yes

SQL-like query language (SphinxQL)

APIs and other access methods

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

gRPC (https)

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
OLE DB
Tabular Data Stream (TDS)

Proprietary protocol

Supported programming languages

C++
Java
Python

C#
C++
Delphi
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Visual Basic

C++

unofficial client library
Java
Perl

unofficial client library
PHP
Python
Ruby

unofficial client library

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions and aggregates

Transact SQL, .NET languages, R, Python and (with SQL Server 2019) Java

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Automatic sharding

depending on storage layer

tables can be distributed across several files (horizontal partitioning); sharding through federation

Sharding

Partitioning is done manually, search queries against distributed index is supported

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Multi-source replication in MPP-Cluster

depending on storage layer

yes, but depending on the SQL-Server Edition

none

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

depending on storage layer

Eventual Consistency

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

not needed in graphs

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

The original contents of fields are not stored in the Sphinx index.

In-memory capabilities

Is there an option to define some or all structures to be held in-memory only.

yes

depending on storage layer

yes

User concepts

Access control

Access rights for users and roles

yes

depending on the DBMS used for storage

token access

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

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.