DBMS > BigObject vs. Faircom DB vs. Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB vs. RDFox

System Properties Comparison BigObject vs. Faircom DB vs. Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB vs. RDFox

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

Native high-speed multi-model DBMS for relational and key-value store data simultaneously accessible through SQL and NoSQL APIs.

Globally distributed, horizontally scalable, multi-model database service

High performance knowledge graph and semantic reasoning engine

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

a hierachical model (tree) can be imposed

Key-value store
Relational DBMS

Document store
Graph DBMS
Key-value store
Wide column store

Graph DBMS
RDF store

Secondary database models

Spatial 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	0.20
Rank	#318	Overall
	#48	Key-value stores
	#141	Relational DBMS

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

Score	0.23
Rank	#308	Overall
	#25	Graph DBMS
	#14	RDF stores

Website

bigobject.io

www.faircom.com/products/faircom-db

azure.microsoft.com/services/cosmos-db

www.oxfordsemantic.tech

Technical documentation

docs.bigobject.io

docs.faircom.com/docs/en/UUID-7446ae34-a1a7-c843-c894-d5322e395184.html

learn.microsoft.com/azure/cosmos-db

docs.oxfordsemantic.tech

Developer

BigObject, Inc.

FairCom Corporation

Microsoft

Oxford Semantic Technologies

Initial release

2015

1979

2014

2017

Current release

V12, November 2020

6.0, Septermber 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free community edition available

commercial

Restricted, free version 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

ANSI C, C++

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)

AIX
FreeBSD
HP-UX
Linux
NetBSD
OS X
QNX
SCO
Solaris
VxWorks
Windows

easily portable to other OSs

hosted

Linux
macOS
Windows

Data scheme

yes

schema free, schema optional, schema required, partial schema,

schema-free

yes

RDF schemas

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

yes, ANSI SQL Types, JSON, typed binary structures

yes

JSON 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.

Secondary indexes

yes

All properties auto-indexed by default

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like DML and DDL statements

yes, ANSI SQL with proprietary extensions

SQL-like query language

APIs and other access methods

fluentd
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET
Direct SQL
JDBC
JPA
ODBC
RESTful HTTP/JSON API
RESTful MQTT/JSON API
RPC

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

RESTful HTTP API
SPARQL 1.1

Supported programming languages

.Net
C
C#
C++
Java
JavaScript (Node.js and browser)
PHP
Python
Visual Basic

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

C
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Lua

yes

.Net, JavaScript, C/C++

JavaScript

Triggers

yes

JavaScript

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

File partitioning, horizontal partitioning, sharding

Customizable business rules for table partitioning

Sharding

Implicit feature of the cloud service

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

yes, configurable to be parallel or serial, synchronous or asynchronous, uni-directional or bi-directional, ACID-consistent or eventually consistent (with custom conflict resolution).

yes

Implicit feature of the cloud service

replication via a shared file system

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

with Hadoop integration

Integration with Hadoop/HDInsight on Azure*

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

none

Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency
Tunable consistency per server, database, table, and transaction

Bounded Staleness
Consistent Prefix
Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

Consistency level configurable on request level
Session Consistency

Immediate Consistency in stand-alone mode, Eventual Consistency in replicated setups

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

tunable from ACID to Eventually Consistent

Multi-item ACID transactions with snapshot isolation within a partition

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Read/write lock on objects (tables, trees)

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

Yes, tunable from durable to delayed durability to in-memory

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

Fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard with additional protections for files

Access rights can be defined down to the item level

Roles, resources, and access types

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.