DBMS > Badger vs. etcd vs. FatDB vs. GeoMesa vs. SAP SQL Anywhere

System Properties Comparison Badger vs. etcd vs. FatDB vs. GeoMesa vs. SAP SQL Anywhere

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.

Description

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

A distributed reliable key-value store

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

GeoMesa is a distributed spatio-temporal DBMS based on various systems as storage layer.

RDBMS database and synchronization technologies for server, desktop, remote office, and mobile environments

Primary database model

Key-value store

Document store
Key-value store

Spatial DBMS

Relational DBMS

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

Score	0.22
Rank	#320	Overall
	#47	Key-value stores

Score	7.03
Rank	#54	Overall
	#5	Key-value stores

Score	0.86
Rank	#205	Overall
	#4	Spatial DBMS

Score	3.95
Rank	#80	Overall
	#42	Relational DBMS

Website

github.com/dgraph-io/badger

etcd.io
github.com/etcd-io/etcd

www.geomesa.org

www.sap.com/products/technology-platform/sql-anywhere.html

Technical documentation

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

etcd.io/docs
github.com/etcd-io/etcd/tree/master/Documentation

www.geomesa.org/documentation/stable/user/index.html

help.sap.com/docs/SAP_SQL_Anywhere

Developer

DGraph Labs

FatCloud

CCRi and others

SAP

formerly Sybase

Initial release

2017

2012

2014

1992

Current release

3.4, August 2019

5.0.0, May 2024

17, July 2015

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache 2.0

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0

commercial

Open Source

Apache License 2.0

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

Scala

Server operating systems

BSD
Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

FreeBSD
Linux
Windows

experimental

Windows

AIX
HP-UX
Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

Data scheme

schema-free

yes

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

Via inetgration in SQL Server

yes

APIs and other access methods

gRPC
JSON over HTTP

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

ADO.NET
HTTP API
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

.Net
C
C++
Clojure
Erlang
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Perl
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Rust
Scala
Tcl

C
C#
C++
Delphi
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

via applications

yes, in C/C++, Java, .Net or Perl

Triggers

yes, watching key changes

yes

via applications

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

Sharding

depending on storage layer

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

Using Raft consensus algorithm to ensure data replication with strong consistency among multiple replicas.

selectable replication factor

depending on storage layer

Source-replica replication

Database mirroring

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

none

Immediate Consistency

Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

depending on storage layer

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

In-memory capabilities

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

depending on storage layer

yes

User concepts

Access control

Can implement custom security layer via applications

yes

depending on the DBMS used for storage

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

DB-Engines blog posts

Spatial database management systems
6 April 2021, Matthias Gelbmann

show all

Recent citations in the news

etcd: the Not-so-Secret Sauce in Google's Kubernetes and Pivotal's Cloud Foundry
31 May 2024, Data Center Knowledge

Monitor Amazon EKS Control Plane metrics using AWS Open Source monitoring services | Amazon Web Services
12 October 2023, AWS Blog

Apache APISIX Without etcd?
27 July 2023, hackernoon.com

ETCD directives don't go well with RBI's stellar reputation
14 April 2024, Business Standard

Killing a market, softly: How an RBI communique could end India's thriving ETCD market
7 April 2024, The Economic Times

provided by Google News

SAP vulnerabilities Let Attacker Inject OS Commands—Patch Now!
11 July 2023, CybersecurityNews

SAP Products & Services Data Portfolio
2 July 2021, Datamation

Securing SAP with AWS Network Firewall: Part 2 – Managed Rules | Amazon Web Services
17 July 2023, AWS Blog

MindsDB is now the leading and fastest growing applied ML platform in the world India - English
3 November 2022, PR Newswire

Gartner’s Magic Quadrant for Cloud Database Management Systems
9 December 2020, CRN

provided by Google News

Share this page