DBMS > Apache Drill vs. JaguarDB vs. Microsoft Azure Synapse Analytics vs. RDFox vs. Snowflake

System Properties Comparison Apache Drill vs. JaguarDB vs. Microsoft Azure Synapse Analytics vs. RDFox vs. Snowflake

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

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

Performant, highly scalable DBMS for AI and IoT applications

Elastic, large scale data warehouse service leveraging the broad eco-system of SQL Server

High performance knowledge graph and semantic reasoning engine

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

Primary database model

Document store
Relational DBMS

Key-value store
Vector DBMS

Relational DBMS

Graph DBMS
RDF store

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Relational DBMS

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

Score	1.95
Rank	#127	Overall
	#23	Document stores
	#60	Relational DBMS

Score	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#60	Key-value stores
	#13	Vector DBMS

Score	20.56
Rank	#31	Overall
	#19	Relational DBMS

Score	0.23
Rank	#308	Overall
	#25	Graph DBMS
	#14	RDF stores

Score	121.33
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Website

drill.apache.org

www.jaguardb.com

azure.microsoft.com/services/synapse-analytics

www.oxfordsemantic.tech

www.snowflake.com

Technical documentation

drill.apache.org/docs

www.jaguardb.com/support.html

docs.microsoft.com/azure/synapse-analytics

docs.oxfordsemantic.tech

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

Apache Software Foundation

DataJaguar, Inc.

Microsoft

Oxford Semantic Technologies

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Initial release

2012

2015

2016

2017

2014

Current release

1.20.3, January 2023

3.3 July 2023

6.0, Septermber 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache Version 2

Open Source

GPL V3.0

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

C++

the server part. Clients available in other languages

C++

Server operating systems

Linux
OS X
Windows

Linux

hosted

Linux
macOS
Windows

hosted

Data scheme

schema-free

yes

RDF schemas

yes

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

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

A subset of ANSI SQL is implemented

but no views, foreign keys, triggers

yes

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

JDBC
ODBC

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

RESTful HTTP API
SPARQL 1.1

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

C++

C
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scala

C#
Java
PHP

C
Java

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

Transact SQL

user defined functions

Triggers

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

Sharding, horizontal partitioning

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Multi-source replication

yes

replication via a shared file system

yes

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

none

Eventual Consistency

Immediate Consistency

Immediate Consistency in stand-alone mode, Eventual Consistency in replicated setups

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/synapse-analytics/sql-data-warehouse/sql-data-warehouse-table-constraints

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

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

rights management via user accounts

yes

Roles, resources, and access types

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.