DBMS > BigObject vs. JaguarDB vs. Memcached vs. Snowflake vs. TerarkDB

System Properties Comparison BigObject vs. JaguarDB vs. Memcached vs. Snowflake vs. TerarkDB

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

Analytic DBMS for real-time computations and queries

Performant, highly scalable DBMS for AI and IoT applications

In-memory key-value store, originally intended for caching

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

A key-value store forked from RocksDB with advanced compression algorithms. It can be used standalone or as a storage engine for MySQL and MongoDB

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

a hierachical model (tree) can be imposed

Key-value store
Vector DBMS

Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Key-value store

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

Score	0.13
Rank	#333	Overall
	#147	Relational DBMS

Score	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#60	Key-value stores
	#13	Vector DBMS

Score	19.42
Rank	#32	Overall
	#4	Key-value stores

Score	121.33
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Score	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#60	Key-value stores

Website

github.com/bytedance/terarkdb

Technical documentation

docs.bigobject.io

www.jaguardb.com/support.html

github.com/memcached/memcached/wiki

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

bytedance.larkoffice.com/docs/doccnZmYFqHBm06BbvYgjsHHcKc

Developer

BigObject, Inc.

DataJaguar, Inc.

Danga Interactive

originally developed by Brad Fitzpatrick for LiveJournal

Snowflake Computing Inc.

ByteDance, originally Terark

Initial release

2015

2003

2014

2016

Current release

3.3 July 2023

1.6.25, March 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free community edition available

Open Source

GPL V3.0

Open Source

BSD license

commercial

restricted open source version available

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++

the server part. Clients available in other languages

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

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X
Unix
Windows

hosted

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

yes

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

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

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

A subset of ANSI SQL is implemented

but no views, foreign keys, triggers

yes

APIs and other access methods

fluentd
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

JDBC
ODBC

Proprietary protocol

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

C++ API
Java API

Supported programming languages

C
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scala

.Net
C
C++
ColdFusion
Erlang
Java
Lisp
Lua
OCaml
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

C++
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Lua

user defined functions

Triggers

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

Sharding

none

yes

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

Multi-source replication

none

Repcached, a Memcached patch, provides this functionallity

yes

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

none

Eventual Consistency

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

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Read/write lock on objects (tables, trees)

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

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

rights management via user accounts

yes

using SASL (Simple Authentication and Security Layer) protocol

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.