DBMS > BigObject vs. EsgynDB vs. Graph Engine vs. Infobright vs. OrigoDB

System Properties Comparison BigObject vs. EsgynDB vs. Graph Engine vs. Infobright vs. OrigoDB

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

Analytic DBMS for real-time computations and queries

Enterprise-class SQL-on-Hadoop solution, powered by Apache Trafodion

A distributed in-memory data processing engine, underpinned by a strongly-typed RAM store and a general distributed computation engine

High performant column-oriented DBMS for analytic workloads using MySQL or PostgreSQL as a frontend

A fully ACID in-memory object graph database

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

a hierachical model (tree) can be imposed

Relational DBMS

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Document store
Object oriented DBMS

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

Score	0.13
Rank	#333	Overall
	#147	Relational DBMS

Score	0.16
Rank	#329	Overall
	#146	Relational DBMS

Score	0.61
Rank	#240	Overall
	#21	Graph DBMS
	#35	Key-value stores

Score	0.96
Rank	#194	Overall
	#91	Relational DBMS

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

Website

bigobject.io

www.esgyn.cn

www.graphengine.io

ignitetech.com/softwarelibrary/infobrightdb

origodb.com

Technical documentation

docs.bigobject.io

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

origodb.com/docs

Developer

BigObject, Inc.

Esgyn

Microsoft

Ignite Technologies Inc.; formerly InfoBright Inc.

Robert Friberg et al

Initial release

2015

2010

2005

2009

under the name LiveDB

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free community edition available

commercial

Open Source

MIT License

commercial

The open source (GPLv2) version did not support inserts/updates/deletes and was discontinued with July 2016

Open Source

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

C++, Java

.NET and C

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

.NET

Linux
Windows

Data scheme

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

User defined using .NET types and collections

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

Secondary indexes

yes

Knowledge Grid Technology used instead

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like DML and DDL statements

yes

APIs and other access methods

fluentd
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

.NET Client API
HTTP API
LINQ

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC/ADO.Net

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

.Net
C
C#
C++
D
Eiffel
Erlang
Haskell
Java
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scheme
Tcl

.Net

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Lua

Java Stored Procedures

yes

Triggers

yes

Domain Events

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

Sharding

horizontal partitioning

none

horizontal partitioning

client side managed; servers are not synchronized

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

Multi-source replication between multi datacenters

Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

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

depending on model

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

optional: either by committing a write-ahead log (WAL) to the local persistent storage or by dumping the memory to a persistent storage

yes

Write ahead log

In-memory capabilities

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

yes

User concepts

Access control

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

exploiting MySQL or PostgreSQL frontend capabilities

Role based authorization

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

Recent citations in the news

Trinity
2 June 2023, Microsoft

Open source Microsoft Graph Engine takes on Neo4j
13 February 2017, InfoWorld

IBM releases Graph, a service that can outperform SQL databases
27 July 2016, GeekWire

Aerospike Is Now a Graph Database, Too
21 June 2023, Datanami

The graph analytics landscape 2019 - DataScienceCentral.com
27 February 2019, Data Science Central

provided by Google News

Ignite Buys Database Vendor Infobright
2 May 2017, Datanami

provided by Google News

Share this page