DBMS > BigObject vs. HarperDB vs. Snowflake vs. YottaDB

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

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

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

A fast and solid embedded Key-value store

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

a hierachical model (tree) can be imposed

Document store

Relational DBMS

Key-value store

Secondary database models

Relational DBMS

using the Octo plugin

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

Score	0.19
Rank	#329	Overall
	#146	Relational DBMS

Score	0.60
Rank	#244	Overall
	#38	Document stores

Score	130.36
Rank	#8	Overall
	#5	Relational DBMS

Score	0.28
Rank	#306	Overall
	#44	Key-value stores

Website

Technical documentation

docs.bigobject.io

docs.harperdb.io/docs

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

yottadb.com/resources/documentation

Developer

BigObject, Inc.

HarperDB

Snowflake Computing Inc.

YottaDB, LLC

Initial release

2015

2017

2014

2001

Current release

3.1, August 2021

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free community edition available

commercial

free community edition available

commercial

Open Source

AGPL 3.0

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

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)

Linux
OS X

hosted

Docker
Linux

Data scheme

yes

dynamic schema

yes

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

schema-free

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

SQL-like data manipulation statements

yes

by using the Octo plugin

APIs and other access methods

fluentd
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

JDBC
ODBC
React Hooks
RESTful HTTP/JSON API
WebSocket

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

PostgreSQL wire protocol

using the Octo plugin
Proprietary protocol

Supported programming languages

.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

C
Go
JavaScript (Node.js)
Lua
M
Perl
Python
Rust

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

Atomic execution of specific operations

ACID

optimistic locking

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Read/write lock on objects (tables, trees)

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

Users and groups based on OS-security mechanisms

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.