DBMS > BigObject vs. etcd vs. Microsoft SQL Server

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

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

A distributed reliable key-value store

Microsofts flagship relational DBMS

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

a hierachical model (tree) can be imposed

Key-value 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	#333	Overall
	#147	Relational DBMS

Score	7.25
Rank	#54	Overall
	#5	Key-value stores

Score	824.29
Rank	#3	Overall
	#3	Relational DBMS

Website

bigobject.io

etcd.io
github.com/etcd-io/etcd

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

Technical documentation

docs.bigobject.io

etcd.io/docs
github.com/etcd-io/etcd/tree/master/Documentation

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

Developer

BigObject, Inc.

Microsoft

Initial release

2015

1989

Current release

3.4, August 2019

SQL Server 2022, November 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free community edition available

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0

commercial

restricted free version is available

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)

FreeBSD
Linux
Windows

experimental

Linux
Windows

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

yes

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

yes

APIs and other access methods

fluentd
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

gRPC
JSON over HTTP

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

Supported programming languages

.Net
C
C++
Clojure
Erlang
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Perl
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Rust
Scala
Tcl

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

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Lua

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

Triggers

yes, watching key changes

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

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

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

Using Raft consensus algorithm to ensure data replication with strong consistency among multiple replicas.

yes, but depending on the SQL-Server Edition

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

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

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

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.