DBMS > FatDB vs. IBM Cloudant vs. Netezza vs. Snowflake

System Properties Comparison FatDB vs. IBM Cloudant vs. Netezza vs. Snowflake

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

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

Description

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

Database as a Service offering based on Apache CouchDB

Data warehouse and analytics appliance part of IBM PureSystems

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

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Document store

Relational DBMS

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

Score	2.73
Rank	#108	Overall
	#20	Document stores

Score	10.18
Rank	#46	Overall
	#29	Relational DBMS

Score	123.20
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Website

www.ibm.com/products/cloudant

www.ibm.com/products/netezza

www.snowflake.com

Technical documentation

cloud.ibm.com/docs/Cloudant

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

FatCloud

IBM, Apache Software Foundation

IBM acquired Cloudant in February 2014

IBM

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Initial release

2012

2010

2000

2014

License

Commercial or Open Source

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

Erlang

Server operating systems

Windows

hosted

Linux

included in appliance

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

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

Via inetgration in SQL Server

yes

APIs and other access methods

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

RESTful HTTP/JSON API

JDBC
ODBC
OLE DB

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

C#
Java
JavaScript
Objective-C
PHP
Ruby

C
C++
Fortran
Java
Lua
Perl
Python
R

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

via applications

View functions (Map-Reduce) in JavaScript

yes

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

selectable replication factor

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

Source-replica replication

yes

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

Eventual Consistency

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

atomic operations within a document possible

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Optimistic locking

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.

User concepts

Access control

Can implement custom security layer via applications

Access rights for users can be defined per database

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

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

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.