DBMS > Badger vs. Brytlyt vs. Galaxybase vs. Snowflake

System Properties Comparison Badger vs. Brytlyt vs. Galaxybase vs. Snowflake

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

An embeddable, persistent, simple and fast Key-Value Store, written purely in Go.

Scalable GPU-accelerated RDBMS for very fast analytic and streaming workloads, leveraging PostgreSQL

Scalable, ACID-compliant native distributed parallel graph platform

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

Primary database model

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

Score	0.14
Rank	#331	Overall
	#49	Key-value stores

Score	0.29
Rank	#288	Overall
	#131	Relational DBMS

Score	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#39	Graph DBMS

Score	121.33
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Website

github.com/dgraph-io/badger

brytlyt.io

galaxybase.com

www.snowflake.com

Technical documentation

godoc.org/github.com/dgraph-io/badger

docs.brytlyt.io

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

DGraph Labs

Brytlyt

Chuanglin(Createlink) Technology Co., Ltd 浙江创邻科技有限公司

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Initial release

2017

2016

2017

2014

Current release

5.0, August 2023

Nov 20, November 2021

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache 2.0

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, C++ and CUDA

C and Java

Server operating systems

BSD
Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

Linux
OS X
Windows

Linux

hosted

Data scheme

schema-free

yes

Strong typed schema

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

specific XML-type available, but no XML query functionality.

yes

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

APIs and other access methods

ADO.NET
JDBC
native C library
ODBC
streaming API for large objects

Browser interface
console (shell)
Graph API (Gremlin)
OpenCypher
Proprietary native API

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

.Net
C
C++
Delphi
Java
Perl
Python
Tcl

Go
Java
Python

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in PL/pgSQL

user defined procedures and functions

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

Sharding

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

Source-replica replication

yes

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

none

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Relationships in graphs

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

In-memory capabilities

Is there an option to define some or all structures to be held in-memory only.

yes

User concepts

Access control

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

Role-based access control

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.