DBMS > AnzoGraph DB vs. Snowflake vs. Sphinx vs. Warp 10

System Properties Comparison AnzoGraph DB vs. Snowflake vs. Sphinx vs. Warp 10

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

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

Open source search engine for searching in data from different sources, e.g. relational databases

TimeSeries DBMS specialized on timestamped geo data based on LevelDB or HBase

Primary database model

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	130.36
Rank	#8	Overall
	#5	Relational DBMS

Score	5.95
Rank	#55	Overall
	#5	Search engines

Score	0.14
Rank	#344	Overall
	#32	Time Series DBMS

Website

cambridgesemantics.com/anzograph

www.snowflake.com

sphinxsearch.com

www.warp10.io

Technical documentation

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

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

sphinxsearch.com/docs

www.warp10.io/content/02_Getting_started

Developer

Cambridge Semantics

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Sphinx Technologies Inc.

SenX

Initial release

2018

2014

2001

2015

Current release

2.3, January 2021

3.5.1, February 2023

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free trial version available

commercial

Open Source

GPL version 2, commercial licence available

Open Source

Apache License 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

C++

Java

Server operating systems

Linux

hosted

FreeBSD
Linux
NetBSD
OS X
Solaris
Windows

Linux
OS X
Windows

Data scheme

Schema-free and OWL/RDFS-schema support

yes

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

yes

schema-free

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

full-text index on all search fields

SQL

Support of SQL

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

yes

SQL-like query language (SphinxQL)

APIs and other access methods

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

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

Proprietary protocol

HTTP API
Jupyter
WebSocket

Supported programming languages

C++
Java
Python

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

C++

unofficial client library
Java
Perl

unofficial client library
PHP
Python
Ruby

unofficial client library

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions and aggregates

user defined functions

yes

WarpScript

Triggers

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Automatic sharding

yes

Sharding

Partitioning is done manually, search queries against distributed index is supported

Sharding

based on HBase

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Multi-source replication in MPP-Cluster

yes

none

selectable replication factor

based on HBase

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

based on HBase

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

not needed in graphs

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

The original contents of fields are not stored in the Sphinx index.

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

Mandatory use of cryptographic tokens, containing fine-grained authorizations

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.