DBMS > Badger vs. Google Cloud Datastore vs. Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB vs. Prometheus vs. SAP Advantage Database Server

System Properties Comparison Badger vs. Google Cloud Datastore vs. Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB vs. Prometheus vs. SAP Advantage Database Server

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

SAP Advantage Database Server seems to be discontinued. Therefore it is excluded from the DB-Engines Ranking.

Description

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

Automatically scaling NoSQL Database as a Service (DBaaS) on the Google Cloud Platform

Globally distributed, horizontally scalable, multi-model database service

Open-source Time Series DBMS and monitoring system

Low-cost RDBMS with access to ISAM and FoxPro data structures

Primary database model

Key-value store

Document store

Document store
Graph DBMS
Key-value store
Wide column store

Time Series DBMS

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Spatial DBMS

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

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

Score	4.47
Rank	#76	Overall
	#12	Document stores

Score	29.04
Rank	#27	Overall
	#4	Document stores
	#2	Graph DBMS
	#3	Key-value stores
	#3	Wide column stores

Score	8.42
Rank	#47	Overall
	#2	Time Series DBMS

Website

github.com/dgraph-io/badger

cloud.google.com/datastore

azure.microsoft.com/services/cosmos-db

prometheus.io

www.sap.com/products/advantage-database-server.html

Technical documentation

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

cloud.google.com/datastore/docs

learn.microsoft.com/azure/cosmos-db

prometheus.io/docs

Developer

DGraph Labs

Google

Microsoft

Sybase, SAP

Initial release

2017

2008

2014

2015

1993

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache 2.0

commercial

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

Server operating systems

BSD
Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

hosted

Linux
Windows

Data scheme

schema-free

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes, details here

yes

JSON types

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.

Import of XML data possible

Secondary indexes

yes

All properties auto-indexed by default

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like query language (GQL)

SQL-like query language

yes

APIs and other access methods

gRPC (using protocol buffers) API
RESTful HTTP/JSON API

DocumentDB API
Graph API (Gremlin)
MongoDB API
RESTful HTTP API
Table API

RESTful HTTP/JSON API

.NET Client API
ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
OLE DB

Supported programming languages

.Net
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
Ruby

.Net
C#
Java
JavaScript
JavaScript (Node.js)
MongoDB client drivers written for various programming languages
Python

.Net
C++
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Python
Ruby

Delphi
Perl
PHP

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

using Google App Engine

JavaScript

yes

Triggers

Callbacks using the Google Apps Engine

JavaScript

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

Sharding

Implicit feature of the cloud service

Sharding

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

Multi-source replication using Paxos

yes

Implicit feature of the cloud service

yes

by Federation

Multi-source replication

CONFLICT Trigger to resolve replication conflicts
Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

using Google Cloud Dataflow

with Hadoop integration

Integration with Hadoop/HDInsight on Azure*

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

none

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on type of query and configuration

Strong Consistency is default for entity lookups and queries within an Entity Group (but can instead be made eventually consistent). Other queries are always eventual consistent.

Bounded Staleness
Consistent Prefix
Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

Consistency level configurable on request level
Session Consistency

none

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

via ReferenceProperties or Ancestor paths

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Serializable Isolation within Transactions, Read Committed outside of Transactions

Multi-item ACID transactions with snapshot isolation within a partition

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.

caching of (temporary) tables can be configured

User concepts

Access control

Access rights for users, groups and roles based on Google Cloud Identity and Access Management (IAM)

Access rights can be defined down to the item level

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.