DBMS > Blazegraph vs. FatDB vs. GridDB vs. Snowflake

System Properties Comparison Blazegraph vs. FatDB vs. GridDB vs. Snowflake

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Amazon has acquired Blazegraph's domain and (probably) product. It is said that Amazon Neptune is based on Blazegraph.

FatDB/FatCloud has ceased operations as a company with February 2014. FatDB is discontinued and excluded from the ranking.

Description

High-performance graph database supporting Semantic Web (RDF/SPARQL) and Graph Database (tinkerpop3, blueprints, vertex-centric) APIs with scale-out and High Availability.

A .NET NoSQL DBMS that can integrate with and extend SQL Server.

Scalable in-memory time series database optimized for IoT and Big Data

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

Primary database model

Graph DBMS
RDF store

Document store
Key-value store

Time Series DBMS

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Key-value store
Relational DBMS

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

Score	0.75
Rank	#219	Overall
	#19	Graph DBMS
	#8	RDF stores

Score	1.95
Rank	#128	Overall
	#10	Time Series DBMS

Score	121.33
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Website

blazegraph.com

griddb.net

www.snowflake.com

Technical documentation

wiki.blazegraph.com

docs.griddb.net

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

Blazegraph

FatCloud

Toshiba Corporation

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Initial release

2006

2012

2013

2014

Current release

2.1.5, March 2019

5.1, August 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

extended commercial license available

commercial

Open Source

AGPL version 3 and Apache License, version 2.0 , commercial license (standard and advanced editions) also available

commercial

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

C++

Server operating systems

Linux
OS X
Windows

Windows

Linux

hosted

Data scheme

schema-free

yes

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

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

RDF literal types

yes

numerical, string, blob, geometry, boolean, timestamp

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

SPARQL is used as query language

Via inetgration in SQL Server

SQL92, SQL-like TQL (Toshiba Query Language)

yes

APIs and other access methods

Java API
RESTful HTTP API
SPARQL QUERY
SPARQL UPDATE
TinkerPop 3

.NET Client API
LINQ
RESTful HTTP API
RPC
Windows WCF Bindings

JDBC
ODBC
Proprietary protocol
RESTful HTTP/JSON API

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

.Net
C
C++
Java
JavaScript
PHP
Python
Ruby

C
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

via applications

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

via applications

yes

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

selectable replication factor

Source-replica replication

yes

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Connector for using GridDB as an input source and output destination for Hadoop MapReduce jobs

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

Immediate consistency within container, eventual consistency across containers

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Relationships in Graphs

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

ACID at container level

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

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

Security and Authentication via Web Application Container (Tomcat, Jetty)

Can implement custom security layer via applications

Access rights for users can be defined per database

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

More information provided by the system vendor

Specific characteristics

GridDB is a highly scalable, in-memory time series database optimized for IoT and...
» more

Competitive advantages

1. Optimized for IoT Equipped with Toshiba's proprietary key-container data model...
» more

Typical application scenarios

Factory IoT, Automative Industry, Energy, BEMS, Smart Community, Monitoring system.
» more

Key customers

Denso International [see use case ] An Electric Power company [see use case ] Ishinomaki...
» more

Market metrics

GitHub trending repository
» more

Licensing and pricing models

Open Source license (AGPL v3 & Apache v2) Commercial license (subscription)
» more

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.