DBMS > BigObject vs. CockroachDB vs. mSQL vs. OrigoDB vs. Snowflake

System Properties Comparison BigObject vs. CockroachDB vs. mSQL vs. OrigoDB vs. Snowflake

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

Analytic DBMS for real-time computations and queries

CockroachDB is a distributed database architected for modern cloud applications. It is wire compatible with PostgreSQL and backed by a Key-Value Store, which is either RocksDB or a purpose-built derivative, called Pebble.

mSQL (Mini SQL) is a simple and lightweight RDBMS

A fully ACID in-memory object graph database

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

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

a hierachical model (tree) can be imposed

Relational DBMS

Document store
Object oriented DBMS

Relational DBMS

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

Score	0.13
Rank	#333	Overall
	#147	Relational DBMS

Score	6.15
Rank	#55	Overall
	#33	Relational DBMS

Score	1.27
Rank	#167	Overall
	#77	Relational DBMS

Score	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#53	Document stores
	#20	Object oriented DBMS

Score	121.33
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Website

bigobject.io

www.cockroachlabs.com

hughestech.com.au/products/msql

origodb.com

www.snowflake.com

Technical documentation

docs.bigobject.io

www.cockroachlabs.com/docs

origodb.com/docs

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

BigObject, Inc.

Cockroach Labs

Hughes Technologies

Robert Friberg et al

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Initial release

2015

1994

2009

under the name LiveDB

2014

Current release

23.1.1, May 2023

4.4, October 2021

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free community edition available

Open Source

Apache 2.0, commercial license available

commercial

free licenses can be provided

Open Source

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

Linux

distributed as a docker-image
OS X

distributed as a docker-image (boot2docker)
Windows

distributed as a docker-image (boot2docker)

Linux
macOS
Windows

AIX
HP-UX
Linux
OS X
Solaris SPARC/x86
Windows

Linux
Windows

hosted

Data scheme

yes

dynamic schema

yes

support of semi-structured data formats (JSON, XML, Avro)

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

User defined using .NET types and collections

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.

can be achieved using .NET

yes

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like DML and DDL statements

yes, wire compatible with PostgreSQL

A subset of ANSI SQL is implemented

no subqueries, aggregate functions, views, foreign keys, triggers

yes

APIs and other access methods

fluentd
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

JDBC

JDBC
ODBC

.NET Client API
HTTP API
LINQ

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

C#
C++
Clojure
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
Ruby
Rust

C
C++
Delphi
Java
Perl
PHP
Tcl

.Net

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Lua

yes

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

Domain Events

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

horizontal partitioning (by key range)

all tables are translated to an ordered KV store and then broken down into 64MB ranges, which are then used as replicas in RAFT

none

horizontal partitioning

client side managed; servers are not synchronized

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

Multi-source replication using RAFT

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

none

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

automatically between fact table and dimension tables

yes

depending on model

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Read/write lock on objects (tables, trees)

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

Write ahead log

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

Role-based access control

Role based authorization

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.