DBMS > AnzoGraph DB vs. PlanetScale vs. SQLite vs. TinkerGraph

System Properties Comparison AnzoGraph DB vs. PlanetScale vs. SQLite vs. TinkerGraph

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

Scalable, distributed, serverless MySQL database platform built on top of Vitess

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

A lightweight, in-memory graph engine that serves as a reference implementation of the TinkerPop3 API

Primary database model

Graph DBMS
RDF store

Relational DBMS

Graph DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
Spatial 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	1.49
Rank	#155	Overall
	#72	Relational DBMS

Score	111.41
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Score	0.13
Rank	#345	Overall
	#35	Graph DBMS

Website

cambridgesemantics.com/anzograph

planetscale.com

www.sqlite.org

tinkerpop.apache.org/docs/current/reference/#tinkergraph-gremlin

Technical documentation

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

planetscale.com/docs

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

Developer

Cambridge Semantics

PlanetScale

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Initial release

2018

2020

2000

2009

Current release

2.3, January 2021

3.46.0 (23 May 2024), May 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free trial version available

commercial

Open Source

Public Domain

Open Source

Apache 2.0

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

Java

Server operating systems

Linux

Docker
Linux
macOS

server-less

Data scheme

Schema-free and OWL/RDFS-schema support

yes

dynamic column types

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

not rigid because of 'dynamic typing' concept.

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.

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

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

yes

with proprietary extensions

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

APIs and other access methods

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

ADO.NET
JDBC
MySQL protocol
ODBC

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

TinkerPop 3

Supported programming languages

C++
Java
Python

Ada
C
C#
C++
D
Delphi
Eiffel
Erlang
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scheme
Tcl

Actionscript
Ada
Basic
C
C#
C++
D
Delphi
Forth
Fortran
Haskell
Java
JavaScript
Lisp
Lua
MatLab
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
PL/SQL
Python
R
Ruby
Scala
Scheme
Smalltalk
Tcl

Groovy
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions and aggregates

yes

proprietary syntax

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Automatic sharding

Sharding

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Multi-source replication in MPP-Cluster

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

none

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

Eventual Consistency across shards
Immediate Consistency within a shard

none

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

not needed in graphs

yes

not for MyISAM storage engine

yes

Relationships in graphs

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

ACID at shard level

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

table locks or row locks depending on storage engine

yes

via file-system locks

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

optional

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

no user groups or roles

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.