DBMS > Apache Drill vs. Databend vs. Graph Engine vs. MySQL

System Properties Comparison Apache Drill vs. Databend vs. Graph Engine vs. MySQL

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

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

An open-source, elastic, and workload-aware cloud data warehouse designed to meet businesses' massive-scale analytics needs at low cost and with low complexity

A distributed in-memory data processing engine, underpinned by a strongly-typed RAM store and a general distributed computation engine

Widely used open source RDBMS

Primary database model

Document store
Relational DBMS

Relational DBMS

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Key/Value like access via memcached API

Secondary database models

Document store
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	1.90
Rank	#126	Overall
	#23	Document stores
	#60	Relational DBMS

Score	0.28
Rank	#287	Overall
	#131	Relational DBMS

Score	0.56
Rank	#241	Overall
	#21	Graph DBMS
	#34	Key-value stores

Score	1029.49
Rank	#2	Overall
	#2	Relational DBMS

Website

drill.apache.org

github.com/datafuselabs/databend
www.databend.com

www.graphengine.io

www.mysql.com

Technical documentation

drill.apache.org/docs

docs.databend.com

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

dev.mysql.com/doc

Developer

Apache Software Foundation

Databend Labs

Microsoft

Oracle

since 2010, originally MySQL AB, then Sun

Initial release

2012

2021

2010

1995

Current release

1.20.3, January 2023

1.0.59, April 2023

9.0.0, July 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache Version 2

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0

Open Source

MIT License

Open Source

GPL version 2. Commercial licenses with extended functionallity are available

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

Rust

.NET and C

C and C++

Server operating systems

Linux
OS X
Windows

hosted
Linux
macOS

.NET

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

Data scheme

schema-free

yes

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

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL SELECT statement is SQL:2003 compliant

yes

with proprietary extensions

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

CLI Client
JDBC
RESTful HTTP API

RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
Proprietary native API

Supported programming languages

C++

Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Python
Rust

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

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

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

yes

proprietary syntax

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

none

horizontal partitioning

horizontal partitioning, sharding with MySQL Cluster or MySQL Fabric

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

none

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

not for MyISAM storage engine

Transaction concepts

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

yes

ACID

not for MyISAM storage engine

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

table locks or row locks depending on storage engine

Durability

Support for making data persistent

Depending on the underlying data source

yes

optional: either by committing a write-ahead log (WAL) to the local persistent storage or by dumping the memory to a persistent storage

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

Users with fine-grained authorization concept, user 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.