DBMS > CockroachDB vs. FatDB vs. Hazelcast vs. Microsoft SQL Server

System Properties Comparison CockroachDB vs. FatDB vs. Hazelcast vs. Microsoft SQL Server

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

CockroachDB is a distributed database architected for modern cloud applications. It is wire compatible with PostgreSQL and backed by a Key-Value Store, which is either RocksDB or a purpose-built derivative, called Pebble.

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

A widely adopted in-memory data grid

Microsofts flagship relational DBMS

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Document store
Key-value store

Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store

JSON support with IMDG 3.12

Document store
Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	6.15
Rank	#55	Overall
	#33	Relational DBMS

Score	5.97
Rank	#57	Overall
	#6	Key-value stores

Score	824.29
Rank	#3	Overall
	#3	Relational DBMS

Website

www.cockroachlabs.com

hazelcast.com

www.microsoft.com/en-us/sql-server

Technical documentation

www.cockroachlabs.com/docs

hazelcast.org/imdg/docs

learn.microsoft.com/en-US/sql/sql-server

Developer

Cockroach Labs

FatCloud

Hazelcast

Microsoft

Initial release

2015

2012

2008

1989

Current release

23.1.1, May 2023

5.3.6, November 2023

SQL Server 2022, November 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache 2.0, commercial license available

commercial

Open Source

Apache Version 2; commercial licenses available

commercial

restricted free version is available

Cloud-based only

Only available as a cloud service

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
macOS
Windows

Windows

All OS with a Java VM

Linux
Windows

Data scheme

dynamic schema

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.

yes

the object must implement a serialization strategy

yes

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes, wire compatible with PostgreSQL

Via inetgration in SQL Server

SQL-like query language

yes

APIs and other access methods

JDBC

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

JCache
JPA
Memcached protocol
RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
OLE DB
Tabular Data Stream (TDS)

Supported programming languages

C#
C++
Clojure
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
Ruby
Rust

.Net
C#
C++
Clojure
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Python
Scala

C#
C++
Delphi
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Visual Basic

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

via applications

yes

Event Listeners, Executor Services

Transact SQL, .NET languages, R, Python and (with SQL Server 2019) Java

Triggers

yes

via applications

yes

Events

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

horizontal partitioning (by key range)

all tables are translated to an ordered KV store and then broken down into 64MB ranges, which are then used as replicas in RAFT

Sharding

tables can be distributed across several files (horizontal partitioning); sharding through federation

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Multi-source replication using RAFT

selectable replication factor

yes

Replicated Map

yes, but depending on the SQL-Server Edition

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency selectable by user

Raft Consensus Algorithm

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

one or two-phase-commit; repeatable reads; read commited

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

Role-based access control

Can implement custom security layer via applications

Role-based access control

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.