DBMS > BigObject vs. DuckDB vs. HarperDB vs. Snowflake

System Properties Comparison BigObject vs. DuckDB vs. HarperDB vs. Snowflake

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

Analytic DBMS for real-time computations and queries

An embeddable, in-process, column-oriented SQL OLAP RDBMS

Ultra-low latency distributed database with an intuitive REST API supporting NoSQL and SQL (including joins). Deployment of functions and databases simultaneously with a consolidated node-level architecture.

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

Relational DBMS

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

Score	0.19
Rank	#329	Overall
	#146	Relational DBMS

Score	4.63
Rank	#69	Overall
	#37	Relational DBMS

Score	0.60
Rank	#244	Overall
	#38	Document stores

Score	130.36
Rank	#8	Overall
	#5	Relational DBMS

Website

Technical documentation

docs.bigobject.io

duckdb.org/docs

docs.harperdb.io/docs

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

BigObject, Inc.

HarperDB

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Initial release

2015

2018

2017

2014

Current release

0.10, February 2024

3.1, August 2021

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free community edition available

Open Source

MIT License

commercial

free community edition available

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++

Node.js

Server operating systems

Linux

distributed as a docker-image
OS X

distributed as a docker-image (boot2docker)
Windows

distributed as a docker-image (boot2docker)

server-less

Linux
OS X

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

JSON data types

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

SQL-like DML and DDL statements

yes

SQL-like data manipulation statements

yes

APIs and other access methods

fluentd
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

Arrow Database Connectivity (ADBC)
CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

JDBC
ODBC
React Hooks
RESTful HTTP/JSON API
WebSocket

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

C
C#

3rd party driver
C++
Crystal

3rd party driver
Go

3rd party driver
Java
Lisp

3rd party driver
Python
R
Ruby

3rd party driver
Rust
Swift
Zig

3rd party driver

.Net
C
C#
C++
ColdFusion
D
Dart
Delphi
Erlang
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Lisp
MatLab
Objective C
Perl
PHP
PowerShell
Prolog
Python
R
Ruby
Rust
Scala
Swift

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Lua

Custom Functions

since release 3.1

user defined functions

Triggers

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

A table resides as a whole on one (or more) nodes in a cluster

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

yes

the nodes on which a table resides can be defined

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

automatically between fact table and dimension tables

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Atomic execution of specific operations

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Read/write lock on objects (tables, trees)

yes, multi-version concurrency control (MVCC)

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

yes, using LMDB

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 and roles

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.