DBMS > Apache Drill vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Coveo vs. DuckDB vs. Snowflake

System Properties Comparison Apache Drill vs. Atos Standard Common Repository vs. Coveo vs. DuckDB vs. Snowflake

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

This system has been discontinued and will be removed from the DB-Engines ranking.

Description

Schema-free SQL Query Engine for Hadoop, NoSQL and Cloud Storage

Highly scalable database system, designed for managing session and subscriber data in modern mobile communication networks

AI-powered hosted search, recommendation and personalization platform providing tools for both low-code and full-code development

An embeddable, in-process, column-oriented SQL OLAP RDBMS

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

Primary database model

Document store
Relational DBMS

Document store
Key-value store

Search engine

Relational DBMS

DB-Engines Ranking measures the popularity of database management systems
Trend Chart

Score	2.02
Rank	#124	Overall
	#22	Document stores
	#59	Relational DBMS

Score	2.11
Rank	#118	Overall
	#11	Search engines

Score	4.63
Rank	#69	Overall
	#37	Relational DBMS

Score	130.36
Rank	#8	Overall
	#5	Relational DBMS

Website

drill.apache.org

atos.net/en/convergence-creators/portfolio/standard-common-repository

www.coveo.com

duckdb.org

www.snowflake.com

Technical documentation

drill.apache.org/docs

docs.coveo.com

duckdb.org/docs

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

Apache Software Foundation

Atos Convergence Creators

Coveo

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Initial release

2012

2016

2012

2018

2014

Current release

1.20.3, January 2023

1703

0.10, February 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache Version 2

commercial

Open Source

MIT License

commercial

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

C++

Server operating systems

Linux
OS X
Windows

Linux

hosted

server-less

hosted

Data scheme

schema-free

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

hybrid - fields need to be configured prior to indexing, but relationships can be exploited at query time without pre-configuration

yes

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

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

optional

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

SQL SELECT statement is SQL:2003 compliant

yes

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

LDAP

RESTful HTTP API

Arrow Database Connectivity (ADBC)
CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

C++

All languages with LDAP bindings

C#
Java
JavaScript
Python

C
C#

3rd party driver
C++
Crystal

3rd party driver
Go

3rd party driver
Java
Lisp

3rd party driver
Python
R
Ruby

3rd party driver
Rust
Swift
Zig

3rd party driver

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

yes

none

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

none

yes

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

none

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

Atomic execution of specific operations

yes

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

yes, multi-version concurrency control (MVCC)

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

Depending on the underlying data source

yes

In-memory capabilities

Is there an option to define some or all structures to be held in-memory only.

Depending on the underlying data source

yes

User concepts

Access control

Depending on the underlying data source

LDAP bind authentication

granular access controls, API key management, content filters

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.