DBMS > BigObject vs. Microsoft SQL Server vs. Sequoiadb

System Properties Comparison BigObject vs. Microsoft SQL Server vs. Sequoiadb

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

Microsofts flagship relational DBMS

NewSQL database with distributed OLTP and SQL

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

a hierachical model (tree) can be imposed

Relational DBMS

Document store
Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	0.13
Rank	#342	Overall
	#150	Relational DBMS

Score	829.80
Rank	#3	Overall
	#3	Relational DBMS

Score	0.48
Rank	#260	Overall
	#41	Document stores
	#121	Relational DBMS

Website

bigobject.io

www.microsoft.com/en-us/sql-server

www.sequoiadb.com

Technical documentation

docs.bigobject.io

learn.microsoft.com/en-US/sql/sql-server

www.sequoiadb.com/en/index.php?m=Files&a=index

Developer

BigObject, Inc.

Microsoft

Sequoiadb Ltd.

Initial release

2015

1989

2013

Current release

SQL Server 2022, November 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free community edition available

commercial

restricted free version is available

Open Source

Server: AGPL; Client: Apache V2

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++

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
Windows

Linux

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

oid, date, timestamp, binary, regex

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 query language

APIs and other access methods

fluentd
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
OLE DB
Tabular Data Stream (TDS)

proprietary protocol using JSON

Supported programming languages

C#
C++
Delphi
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Visual Basic

.Net
C++
Java
PHP
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Lua

Transact SQL, .NET languages, R, Python and (with SQL Server 2019) Java

JavaScript

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

tables can be distributed across several files (horizontal partitioning); sharding through federation

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

yes, but depending on the SQL-Server Edition

Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

none

Immediate Consistency

Eventual 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

Document is locked during a transaction

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

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

simple password-based access control

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.