DBMS > Apache IoTDB vs. Graph Engine vs. Graphite vs. Microsoft SQL Server

System Properties Comparison Apache IoTDB vs. Graph Engine vs. Graphite vs. Microsoft SQL Server

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

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

Data logging and graphing tool for time series data

The storage layer (fixed size database) is called Whisper

Microsofts flagship relational DBMS

Primary database model

Time Series DBMS

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

Time Series DBMS

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	1.18
Rank	#173	Overall
	#15	Time Series DBMS

Score	0.61
Rank	#240	Overall
	#21	Graph DBMS
	#35	Key-value stores

Score	4.57
Rank	#73	Overall
	#5	Time Series DBMS

Score	824.29
Rank	#3	Overall
	#3	Relational DBMS

Website

iotdb.apache.org

www.graphengine.io

github.com/graphite-project/graphite-web

www.microsoft.com/en-us/sql-server

Technical documentation

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

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

graphite.readthedocs.io

learn.microsoft.com/en-US/sql/sql-server

Developer

Apache Software Foundation

Microsoft

Chris Davis

Microsoft

Initial release

2018

2010

2006

1989

Current release

1.1.0, April 2023

SQL Server 2022, November 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0

Open Source

MIT License

Open Source

Apache 2.0

commercial

restricted free version is 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

Java

.NET and C

Python

C++

Server operating systems

All OS with a Java VM (>= 1.8)

.NET

Linux
Unix

Linux
Windows

Data scheme

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

Numeric data only

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-like query language

yes

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
Native API

RESTful HTTP API

HTTP API
Sockets

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
OLE DB
Tabular Data Stream (TDS)

Supported programming languages

C
C#
C++
Go
Java
Python
Scala

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

C#
C++
Delphi
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Visual Basic

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Transact SQL, .NET languages, R, Python and (with SQL Server 2019) Java

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

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

horizontal partitioning

none

tables can be distributed across several files (horizontal partitioning); sharding through federation

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

yes, but depending on the SQL-Server Edition

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

none

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

locking

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

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.