DBMS > Apache IoTDB vs. EJDB vs. OrigoDB vs. Snowflake

System Properties Comparison Apache IoTDB vs. EJDB vs. OrigoDB vs. Snowflake

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

An IoT native database with high performance for data management and analysis, deployable on the edge and the cloud and integrated with Hadoop, Spark and Flink

Embeddable document-store database library with JSON representation of queries (in MongoDB style)

A fully ACID in-memory object graph database

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

Primary database model

Time Series DBMS

Document store

Document store
Object oriented DBMS

Relational DBMS

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

Score	1.18
Rank	#173	Overall
	#15	Time Series DBMS

Score	0.27
Rank	#297	Overall
	#44	Document stores

Score	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#53	Document stores
	#20	Object oriented DBMS

Score	121.33
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Website

iotdb.apache.org

github.com/Softmotions/ejdb

origodb.com

www.snowflake.com

Technical documentation

iotdb.apache.org/UserGuide/Master/QuickStart/QuickStart.html

github.com/Softmotions/ejdb/blob/master/README.md

origodb.com/docs

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

Apache Software Foundation

Softmotions

Robert Friberg et al

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Initial release

2018

2012

2009

under the name LiveDB

2014

Current release

1.1.0, April 2023

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0

Open Source

GPLv2

Open Source

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

Server operating systems

All OS with a Java VM (>= 1.8)

server-less

Linux
Windows

hosted

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

yes

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

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

string, integer, double, bool, date, object_id

User defined using .NET types and collections

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.

can be achieved using .NET

yes

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like query language

yes

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
Native API

in-process shared library

.NET Client API
HTTP API
LINQ

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

C
C#
C++
Go
Java
Python
Scala

Actionscript
C
C#
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Lua
Objective-C
Pike
Python
Ruby

.Net

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

Domain Events

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

horizontal partitioning (by time range) + vertical partitioning (by deviceId)

none

horizontal partitioning

client side managed; servers are not synchronized

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

selectable replication methods; using Raft/IoTConsensus algorithm to ensure strong/eventual data consistency among multiple replicas

none

Source-replica replication

yes

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Integration with Hadoop and Spark

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Eventual Consistency
Strong Consistency with Raft

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

typically not needed, however similar functionality with collection joins possible

depending on model

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Read/Write Locking

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

Write ahead log

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

yes

Role based authorization

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.