DBMS > AnzoGraph DB vs. Graph Engine vs. HarperDB vs. Snowflake

System Properties Comparison AnzoGraph DB vs. Graph Engine vs. HarperDB vs. Snowflake

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 distributed in-memory data processing engine, underpinned by a strongly-typed RAM store and a general distributed computation engine

HarperDB takes the "stack" out of "tech stack" by combining an ultra-fast document-style data store, in-memory cache, real-time message broker, and your application components into a single distributed technology.

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

Primary database model

Graph DBMS
RDF store

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

Document store

Relational DBMS

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

Score	0.22
Rank	#302	Overall
	#24	Graph DBMS
	#13	RDF stores

Score	0.56
Rank	#241	Overall
	#21	Graph DBMS
	#34	Key-value stores

Score	0.55
Rank	#243	Overall
	#38	Document stores

Score	133.72
Rank	#7	Overall
	#5	Relational DBMS

Website

cambridgesemantics.com/anzograph

www.graphengine.io

www.harperdb.io

www.snowflake.com

Technical documentation

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

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

docs.harperdb.io/docs

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

Cambridge Semantics

Microsoft

HarperDB

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Initial release

2018

2010

2017

2014

Current release

2.3, January 2021

3.1, August 2021

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free trial version available

Open Source

MIT License

commercial

free community edition available

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

.NET and C

Node.js

Server operating systems

Linux

.NET

Linux
OS X

hosted

Data scheme

Schema-free and OWL/RDFS-schema support

yes

dynamic schema

yes

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

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

JSON data 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.

yes

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

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

SQL-like data manipulation statements

yes

APIs and other access methods

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

RESTful HTTP API

JDBC
ODBC
React Hooks
RESTful HTTP/JSON API
WebSocket

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

C++
Java
Python

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

.Net
C
C#
C++
ColdFusion
D
Dart
Delphi
Erlang
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Lisp
MatLab
Objective C
Perl
PHP
PowerShell
Prolog
Python
R
Ruby
Rust
Scala
Swift

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions and aggregates

yes

Custom Functions

since release 3.1

user defined functions

Triggers

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Automatic sharding

horizontal partitioning

A table resides as a whole on one (or more) nodes in a cluster

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Multi-source replication in MPP-Cluster

yes

the nodes on which a table resides can be defined

yes

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

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Atomic execution of specific operations

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

optional: either by committing a write-ahead log (WAL) to the local persistent storage or by dumping the memory to a persistent storage

yes, using LMDB

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, 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.