DBMS > BigObject vs. OpenQM vs. Snowflake vs. Vitess

System Properties Comparison BigObject vs. OpenQM vs. Snowflake vs. Vitess

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

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

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

Scalable, distributed, cloud-native DBMS, extending MySQL

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

a hierachical model (tree) can be imposed

Multivalue DBMS

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	0.13
Rank	#333	Overall
	#147	Relational DBMS

Score	0.27
Rank	#298	Overall
	#10	Multivalue DBMS

Score	121.33
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Score	0.82
Rank	#209	Overall
	#97	Relational DBMS

Website

bigobject.io

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

www.snowflake.com

vitess.io

Technical documentation

docs.bigobject.io

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

vitess.io/docs

Developer

BigObject, Inc.

Rocket Software, originally Martin Phillips

Snowflake Computing Inc.

The Linux Foundation, PlanetScale

Initial release

2015

1993

2014

2013

Current release

3.4-12

15.0.2, December 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free community edition available

Open Source

GPLv2, extended commercial license available

commercial

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0, commercial licenses 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

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

Docker
Linux
macOS

Data scheme

yes

with some exceptions

yes

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

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

with proprietary extensions

APIs and other access methods

fluentd
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

ADO.NET
JDBC
MySQL protocol
ODBC

Supported programming languages

.Net
Basic
C
Java
Objective C
PHP
Python

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Ada
C
C#
C++
D
Delphi
Eiffel
Erlang
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scheme
Tcl

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Lua

yes

user defined functions

yes

proprietary syntax

Triggers

yes

similar concept for controling cloud resources

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

yes

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

yes

Multi-source replication
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 across shards
Immediate Consistency within a shard

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

automatically between fact table and dimension tables

yes

not for MyISAM storage engine

Transaction concepts

Support to ensure data integrity after non-atomic manipulations of data

ACID

ACID at shard level

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Read/write lock on objects (tables, trees)

yes

table locks or row locks depending on storage engine

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

Access rights can be defined down to the item level

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

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

no user groups or roles

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.