DBMS > AnzoGraph DB vs. OrigoDB vs. Snowflake vs. XTDB

System Properties Comparison AnzoGraph DB vs. OrigoDB vs. Snowflake vs. XTDB

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 fully ACID in-memory object graph database

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

A general purpose database with bitemporal SQL and Datalog and graph queries

Primary database model

Graph DBMS
RDF store

Document store
Object oriented DBMS

Relational DBMS

Document store

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	0.00
Rank	#385	Overall
	#54	Document stores
	#21	Object oriented DBMS

Score	133.72
Rank	#7	Overall
	#5	Relational DBMS

Score	0.13
Rank	#330	Overall
	#45	Document stores

Website

cambridgesemantics.com/anzograph

origodb.com

www.snowflake.com

github.com/xtdb/xtdb
www.xtdb.com

Technical documentation

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

origodb.com/docs

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

www.xtdb.com/docs

Developer

Cambridge Semantics

Robert Friberg et al

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Juxt Ltd.

Initial release

2018

2009

under the name LiveDB

2014

2019

Current release

2.3, January 2021

1.19, September 2021

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free trial version available

Open Source

commercial

Open Source

MIT License

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

Clojure

Server operating systems

Linux

Linux
Windows

hosted

All OS with a Java 8 (and higher) VM
Linux

Data scheme

Schema-free and OWL/RDFS-schema support

yes

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

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

User defined using .NET types and collections

yes

yes, extensible-data-notation format

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.

can be achieved using .NET

yes

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

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

yes

limited SQL, making use of Apache Calcite

APIs and other access methods

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

.NET Client API
HTTP API
LINQ

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

HTTP REST
JDBC

Supported programming languages

C++
Java
Python

.Net

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Clojure
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions and aggregates

yes

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

Domain Events

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Automatic sharding

horizontal partitioning

client side managed; servers are not synchronized

yes

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Multi-source replication in MPP-Cluster

Source-replica replication

yes

yes, each node contains all data

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

depending on model

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

Write ahead log

yes

yes, flexibel persistency by using storage technologies like Apache Kafka, RocksDB or LMDB

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

Role based authorization

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.