DBMS > atoti vs. Badger vs. GeoSpock vs. Microsoft Azure Synapse Analytics vs. MySQL

System Properties Comparison atoti vs. Badger vs. GeoSpock vs. Microsoft Azure Synapse Analytics vs. MySQL

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

GeoSpock seems to be discontinued. Therefore it will be excluded from the DB-Engines ranking.

Description

An in-memory DBMS combining transactional and analytical processing to handle the aggregation of ever-changing data.

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

Spatial and temporal data processing engine for extreme data scale

Elastic, large scale data warehouse service leveraging the broad eco-system of SQL Server

Widely used open source RDBMS

Primary database model

Object oriented DBMS

Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Key/Value like access via memcached API

Secondary database models

Time Series DBMS

Document store
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	0.45
Rank	#253	Overall
	#13	Object oriented DBMS

Score	0.14
Rank	#328	Overall
	#48	Key-value stores

Score	18.98
Rank	#31	Overall
	#19	Relational DBMS

Score	1029.49
Rank	#2	Overall
	#2	Relational DBMS

Website

atoti.io

github.com/dgraph-io/badger

geospock.com

azure.microsoft.com/services/synapse-analytics

www.mysql.com

Technical documentation

docs.atoti.io

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

docs.microsoft.com/azure/synapse-analytics

dev.mysql.com/doc

Developer

ActiveViam

DGraph Labs

GeoSpock

Microsoft

Oracle

since 2010, originally MySQL AB, then Sun

Initial release

2017

2016

1995

Current release

2.0, September 2019

9.0.0, July 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free versions available

Open Source

Apache 2.0

commercial

Open Source

GPL version 2. Commercial licenses with extended functionallity are available

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

Java, Javascript

C++

C and C++

Server operating systems

BSD
Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

hosted

FreeBSD
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

temporal, categorical

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

Multidimensional Expressions (MDX)

ANSI SQL for query only (using Presto)

yes

with proprietary extensions

APIs and other access methods

JDBC

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
Proprietary native API

Supported programming languages

C#
Java
PHP

Ada
C
C#
C++
D
Delphi
Eiffel
Erlang
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scheme
Tcl

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Python

Transact SQL

yes

proprietary syntax

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding, horizontal partitioning

none

Automatic sharding

Sharding, horizontal partitioning

horizontal partitioning, sharding with MySQL Cluster or MySQL Fabric

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

yes

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

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

docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/synapse-analytics/sql-data-warehouse/sql-data-warehouse-table-constraints

yes

not for MyISAM storage engine

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

not for MyISAM storage engine

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes, multi-version concurrency control (MVCC)

yes

table locks or row locks depending on storage engine

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

Access rights for users can be defined per table

yes

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

no user groups or roles

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.