DBMS > CouchDB vs. Drizzle vs. Graph Engine vs. Snowflake

System Properties Comparison CouchDB vs. Drizzle vs. Graph Engine vs. Snowflake

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Drizzle has published its last release in September 2012. The open-source project is discontinued and Drizzle is excluded from the DB-Engines ranking.

Description

A native JSON - document store inspired by Lotus Notes, scalable from globally distributed server-clusters down to mobile phones.

MySQL fork with a pluggable micro-kernel and with an emphasis of performance over compatibility.

A distributed in-memory data processing engine, underpinned by a strongly-typed RAM store and a general distributed computation engine

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

Primary database model

Document store

Relational DBMS

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Spatial DBMS

using the Geocouch extension

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

Score	8.30
Rank	#47	Overall
	#7	Document stores

Score	0.67
Rank	#232	Overall
	#21	Graph DBMS
	#34	Key-value stores

Score	130.36
Rank	#8	Overall
	#5	Relational DBMS

Website

couchdb.apache.org

www.graphengine.io

www.snowflake.com

Technical documentation

docs.couchdb.org/en/stable

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

Apache Software Foundation

Apache top-level project, originally developed by Damien Katz, a former Lotus Notes developer

Drizzle project, originally started by Brian Aker

Microsoft

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Initial release

2005

2008

2010

2014

Current release

3.3.3, December 2023

7.2.4, September 2012

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache version 2

Open Source

GNU GPL

Open Source

MIT License

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

C++

.NET and C

Server operating systems

Android
BSD
Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X

.NET

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

via views

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

with proprietary extensions

yes

APIs and other access methods

RESTful HTTP/JSON API

JDBC

RESTful HTTP API

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

C
C#
ColdFusion
Erlang
Haskell
Java
JavaScript
Lisp
Lua
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
PL/SQL
Python
Ruby
Smalltalk

C
C++
Java
PHP

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

View functions in JavaScript

yes

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

hooks for callbacks inside the server can be used.

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

improved architecture with release 2.0

Sharding

horizontal partitioning

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Multi-source 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

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

atomic operations within a single document possible

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

strategy: optimistic locking

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

optional: either by committing a write-ahead log (WAL) to the local persistent storage or by dumping the memory to a persistent storage

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 for users can be defined per database

Pluggable authentication mechanisms

e.g. LDAP, HTTP

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.