DBMS > AnzoGraph DB vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. Netezza vs. Snowflake vs. SpatiaLite

System Properties Comparison AnzoGraph DB vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. Netezza vs. Snowflake vs. SpatiaLite

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

Data warehouse and analytics appliance part of IBM PureSystems

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

Spatial extension of SQLite

Primary database model

Secondary database models

Relational 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	4.48
Rank	#75	Overall
	#6	Wide column stores

Score	9.06
Rank	#46	Overall
	#29	Relational DBMS

Score	121.33
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Score	1.60
Rank	#149	Overall
	#3	Spatial DBMS

Website

cambridgesemantics.com/anzograph

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

www.ibm.com/products/netezza

www.snowflake.com

www.gaia-gis.it/fossil/libspatialite/index

Technical documentation

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

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

www.gaia-gis.it/gaia-sins/spatialite_topics.html

Developer

Cambridge Semantics

Microsoft

IBM

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Alessandro Furieri

Initial release

2018

2012

2000

2014

2008

Current release

2.3, January 2021

5.0.0, August 2020

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free trial version available

commercial

Open Source

MPL 1.1, GPL v2.0 or LGPL v2.1

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

hosted

Linux

included in appliance

hosted

server-less

Data scheme

Schema-free and OWL/RDFS-schema support

schema-free

yes

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

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

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
OLE DB

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

C++
Java
Python

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

C
C++
Fortran
Java
Lua
Perl
Python
R

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions and aggregates

yes

user defined functions

Triggers

similar concept for controling cloud resources

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Automatic sharding

Sharding

Implicit feature of the cloud service

Sharding

yes

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Multi-source replication in MPP-Cluster

yes

implicit feature of the cloud service. Replication either local, cross-facility or geo-redundant.

Source-replica replication

yes

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

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

optimistic locking

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

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

Access rights based on private key authentication or shared access signatures

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

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.