DBMS > Apache IoTDB vs. FatDB vs. Graph Engine vs. SiriDB vs. Yaacomo

System Properties Comparison Apache IoTDB vs. FatDB vs. Graph Engine vs. SiriDB vs. Yaacomo

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

FatDB/FatCloud has ceased operations as a company with February 2014. FatDB is discontinued and excluded from the ranking.

Yaacomo seems to be discontinued and is removed from the DB-Engines ranking

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

A .NET NoSQL DBMS that can integrate with and extend SQL Server.

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

Open Source Time Series DBMS

OpenCL based in-memory RDBMS, designed for efficiently utilizing the hardware via parallel computing

Primary database model

Time Series DBMS

Document store
Key-value store

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

Time Series DBMS

Relational DBMS

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

Score	1.31
Rank	#164	Overall
	#14	Time Series DBMS

Score	0.67
Rank	#232	Overall
	#21	Graph DBMS
	#34	Key-value stores

Score	0.07
Rank	#378	Overall
	#42	Time Series DBMS

Website

iotdb.apache.org

www.graphengine.io

siridb.com

yaacomo.com

Technical documentation

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

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

docs.siridb.com

Developer

Apache Software Foundation

FatCloud

Microsoft

Cesbit

Q2WEB GmbH

Initial release

2018

2012

2010

2017

2009

Current release

1.1.0, April 2023

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0

commercial

Open Source

MIT License

Open Source

MIT License

commercial

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

Java

.NET and C

Server operating systems

All OS with a Java VM (>= 1.8)

Windows

.NET

Linux

Android
Linux
Windows

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

Numeric data

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.

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like query language

Via inetgration in SQL Server

yes

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
Native API

.NET Client API
LINQ
RESTful HTTP API
RPC
Windows WCF Bindings

RESTful HTTP API

HTTP API

JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

C
C#
C++
Go
Java
Python
Scala

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

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

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

via applications

yes

Triggers

yes

via applications

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

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

Sharding

horizontal partitioning

Sharding

horizontal partitioning

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

selectable replication factor

yes

Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Integration with Hadoop and Spark

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Eventual Consistency
Strong Consistency with Raft

Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

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

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.

yes

User concepts

Access control

yes

Can implement custom security layer via applications

simple rights management via user accounts

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

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.

Related products and services

We invite representatives of vendors of related products to contact us for presenting information about their offerings here.

More resources

Recent citations in the news

AMD EPYC 4364P & 4564P @ DDR5-4800 / DDR5-5200 vs. Intel Xeon E-2488 Review
6 June 2024, Phoronix

TsFile: A Standard Format for IoT Time Series Data
27 February 2024, The New Stack

Linux 6.5 With AMD P-State EPP Default Brings Performance & Power Efficiency Benefits For Ryzen Servers
21 September 2023, Phoronix

Apache Promotes IoT Database Project
25 September 2020, Datanami

AMD EPYC 8324P / 8324PN Siena 32-Core Siena Linux Server Performance Review
10 October 2023, Phoronix

provided by Google News

Trinity
30 October 2010, Microsoft

Open source Microsoft Graph Engine takes on Neo4j
13 February 2017, InfoWorld

IBM releases Graph, a service that can outperform SQL databases
27 July 2016, GeekWire

Aerospike Is Now a Graph Database, Too
21 June 2023, Datanami

The graph analytics landscape 2019 - DataScienceCentral.com
27 February 2019, Data Science Central

provided by Google News

Share this page