DBMS > BigObject vs. OpenQM vs. Snowflake vs. TimesTen vs. TinkerGraph

System Properties Comparison BigObject vs. OpenQM vs. Snowflake vs. TimesTen vs. TinkerGraph

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

Analytic DBMS for real-time computations and queries

QpenQM is a high-performance, self-tuning, multi-value DBMS

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

In-Memory RDBMS compatible to Oracle

A lightweight, in-memory graph engine that serves as a reference implementation of the TinkerPop3 API

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

a hierachical model (tree) can be imposed

Multivalue DBMS

Relational DBMS

Graph DBMS

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

Score	0.19
Rank	#329	Overall
	#146	Relational DBMS

Score	0.34
Rank	#284	Overall
	#10	Multivalue DBMS

Score	130.36
Rank	#8	Overall
	#5	Relational DBMS

Score	1.36
Rank	#161	Overall
	#75	Relational DBMS

Score	0.13
Rank	#345	Overall
	#35	Graph DBMS

Website

bigobject.io

www.rocketsoftware.com/products/rocket-multivalue-application-development-platform/rocket-open-qm

www.snowflake.com

www.oracle.com/database/technologies/related/timesten.html

tinkerpop.apache.org/docs/current/reference/#tinkergraph-gremlin

Technical documentation

docs.bigobject.io

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

docs.oracle.com/database/timesten-18.1

Developer

BigObject, Inc.

Rocket Software, originally Martin Phillips

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Oracle, TimesTen Performance Software, HP

originally founded in HP Labs it was acquired by Oracle in 2005

Initial release

2015

1993

2014

1998

2009

Current release

3.4-12

11 Release 2 (11.2.2.8.0)

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free community edition available

Open Source

GPLv2, extended commercial license available

commercial

Open Source

Apache 2.0

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

Java

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
Linux
macOS
Raspberry Pi
Solaris
Windows

hosted

AIX
HP-UX
Linux
OS X
Solaris SPARC/x86
Windows

Data scheme

yes

with some exceptions

yes

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

yes

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

yes

APIs and other access methods

fluentd
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

JDBC
ODBC
ODP.NET
Oracle Call Interface (OCI)

TinkerPop 3

Supported programming languages

.Net
Basic
C
Java
Objective C
PHP
Python

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

C
C++
Java
PL/SQL

Groovy
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Lua

yes

user defined functions

PL/SQL

Triggers

yes

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

yes

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

yes

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

none

Immediate Consistency

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

none

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

automatically between fact table and dimension tables

yes

Relationships in graphs

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

by means of logfiles and checkpoints

optional

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 can be defined down to the item level

Users with fine-grained authorization concept, user roles and pluggable authentication

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.