DBMS > AnzoGraph DB vs. mSQL vs. ObjectBox vs. OpenQM vs. OrigoDB

System Properties Comparison AnzoGraph DB vs. mSQL vs. ObjectBox vs. OpenQM vs. OrigoDB

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

mSQL (Mini SQL) is a simple and lightweight RDBMS

Extremely fast embedded database for small devices, IoT and Mobile

QpenQM is a high-performance, self-tuning, multi-value DBMS

A fully ACID in-memory object graph database

Primary database model

Document store
Object oriented DBMS

Secondary database models

Time Series 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	1.27
Rank	#169	Overall
	#76	Relational DBMS

Score	1.29
Rank	#166	Overall
	#5	Object oriented DBMS

Score	0.34
Rank	#284	Overall
	#10	Multivalue DBMS

Score	0.06
Rank	#380	Overall
	#50	Document stores
	#18	Object oriented DBMS

Website

cambridgesemantics.com/anzograph

hughestech.com.au/products/msql

objectbox.io

www.rocketsoftware.com/products/rocket-multivalue-application-development-platform/rocket-open-qm

origodb.com

Technical documentation

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

docs.objectbox.io

origodb.com/docs

Developer

Cambridge Semantics

Hughes Technologies

ObjectBox Limited

Rocket Software, originally Martin Phillips

Robert Friberg et al

Initial release

2018

1994

2017

1993

2009

under the name LiveDB

Current release

2.3, January 2021

4.4, October 2021

3.4-12

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free trial version available

commercial

free licenses can be provided

Open Source

Apache License 2.0

Open Source

GPLv2, extended commercial license available

Open Source

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.

Implementation language

C and C++

Server operating systems

Linux

AIX
HP-UX
Linux
OS X
Solaris SPARC/x86
Windows

Android
iOS
Linux
macOS
Windows

AIX
FreeBSD
Linux
macOS
Raspberry Pi
Solaris
Windows

Linux
Windows

Data scheme

Schema-free and OWL/RDFS-schema support

yes

with some exceptions

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

User defined using .NET types and collections

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

can be achieved using .NET

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

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

A subset of ANSI SQL is implemented

no subqueries, aggregate functions, views, foreign keys, triggers

APIs and other access methods

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

JDBC
ODBC

Proprietary native API

.NET Client API
HTTP API
LINQ

Supported programming languages

C++
Java
Python

C
C++
Delphi
Java
Perl
PHP
Tcl

C
C++
Dart
Go
Java
JavaScript

planned (as of Jan 2019)
Kotlin
Python

planned (as of Jan 2019)
Swift

.Net
Basic
C
Java
Objective C
PHP
Python

.Net

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions and aggregates

yes

Triggers

yes

Domain Events

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Automatic sharding

none

yes

horizontal partitioning

client side managed; servers are not synchronized

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Multi-source replication in MPP-Cluster

none

online/offline synchronization between client and server

yes

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

none

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

not needed in graphs

yes

depending on model

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

Write ahead log

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

yes

Access rights can be defined down to the item level

Role based authorization

More information provided by the system vendor

News

The on-device Vector Database for Android and Java
29 May 2024

Vector search: making sense of search queries
29 May 2024

Python on-device Vector and Object Database for Local AI
28 May 2024

Evolution of search: traditional vs vector search
23 May 2024

On-device Vector Database for Dart/Flutter
21 May 2024

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.

Related products and services

We invite representatives of vendors of related products to contact us for presenting information about their offerings here.

More resources

Recent citations in the news

AnzoGraph review: A graph database for deep analytics
15 April 2019, InfoWorld

AnzoGraph: A W3C Standards-Based Graph Database | by Jo Stichbury
8 February 2019, Towards Data Science

Cambridge Semantics Fits AnzoGraph DB with More Speed, Free Access
23 January 2020, Solutions Review

Back to the future: Does graph database success hang on query language?
5 March 2018, ZDNet

Comparing Graph Databases II. Part 2: ArangoDB, OrientDB, and… | by Sam Bell
20 September 2019, Towards Data Science

provided by Google News

Higher Education PS rules out ghost students before PAC
29 November 2018, diggers.news

provided by Google News

Share this page