DBMS > BigObject vs. RavenDB vs. SAP HANA

System Properties Comparison BigObject vs. RavenDB vs. SAP HANA

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

Open Source Operational and Transactional Enterprise NoSQL Document Database

In-memory, column based data store. Available as appliance or cloud service

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

a hierachical model (tree) can be imposed

Document store

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS
Time Series DBMS

Document store
Graph DBMS

with SAP Hana, Enterprise Edition
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	0.13
Rank	#342	Overall
	#150	Relational DBMS

Score	3.01
Rank	#101	Overall
	#17	Document stores

Score	45.84
Rank	#22	Overall
	#16	Relational DBMS

Website

bigobject.io

ravendb.net

www.sap.com/products/hana.html

Technical documentation

docs.bigobject.io

ravendb.net/docs

help.sap.com/hana

Developer

BigObject, Inc.

Hibernating Rhinos

SAP

Initial release

2015

2010

Current release

5.4, July 2022

2.0 SPS07 (April 4, 2023), April 2023

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free community edition available

Open Source

AGPL version 3, commercial license available

commercial

Cloud-based only

Only available as a cloud service

also available as a cloud based service

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)

Linux
macOS
Raspberry Pi
Windows

Appliance or cloud-service

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.

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like DML and DDL statements

SQL-like query language (RQL)

yes

APIs and other access methods

fluentd
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

.NET Client API
F# Client API
Go Client API
Java Client API
NodeJS Client API
PHP Client API
Python Client API
RESTful HTTP API

JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

.Net
C#
F#
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
Ruby

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Lua

yes

SQLScript, R

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

Sharding

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

Multi-source replication

yes

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

none

Default ACID transactions on the local node (eventually consistent across the cluster). Atomic operations with cluster-wide ACID transactions. Eventual consistency for indexes and full-text search indexes.

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, Cluster-wide transaction available

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

Authorization levels configured per client per database

yes

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.