DBMS > Coveo vs. IBM Cloudant vs. JaguarDB vs. RDFox vs. SAP HANA

System Properties Comparison Coveo vs. IBM Cloudant vs. JaguarDB vs. RDFox vs. SAP HANA

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

AI-powered hosted search, recommendation and personalization platform providing tools for both low-code and full-code development

Database as a Service offering based on Apache CouchDB

Performant, highly scalable DBMS for AI and IoT applications

High performance knowledge graph and semantic reasoning engine

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

Primary database model

Search engine

Document store

Key-value store
Vector DBMS

Graph DBMS
RDF store

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Relational 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	2.28
Rank	#114	Overall
	#11	Search engines

Score	2.68
Rank	#106	Overall
	#20	Document stores

Score	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#60	Key-value stores
	#13	Vector DBMS

Score	0.23
Rank	#308	Overall
	#25	Graph DBMS
	#14	RDF stores

Score	44.69
Rank	#22	Overall
	#16	Relational DBMS

Website

www.coveo.com

www.ibm.com/products/cloudant

www.jaguardb.com

www.oxfordsemantic.tech

www.sap.com/products/hana.html

Technical documentation

docs.coveo.com

cloud.ibm.com/docs/Cloudant

www.jaguardb.com/support.html

docs.oxfordsemantic.tech

help.sap.com/hana

Developer

Coveo

IBM, Apache Software Foundation

IBM acquired Cloudant in February 2014

DataJaguar, Inc.

Oxford Semantic Technologies

SAP

Initial release

2012

2010

2015

2017

2010

Current release

3.3 July 2023

6.0, Septermber 2022

2.0 SPS07 (April 4, 2023), April 2023

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

GPL V3.0

commercial

Cloud-based only

Only available as a cloud service

yes

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

Erlang

C++

the server part. Clients available in other languages

C++

Server operating systems

hosted

Linux

Linux
macOS
Windows

Appliance or cloud-service

Data scheme

hybrid - fields need to be configured prior to indexing, but relationships can be exploited at query time without pre-configuration

schema-free

yes

RDF schemas

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

A subset of ANSI SQL is implemented

but no views, foreign keys, triggers

yes

APIs and other access methods

RESTful HTTP API

RESTful HTTP/JSON API

JDBC
ODBC

RESTful HTTP API
SPARQL 1.1

JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

C#
Java
JavaScript
Python

C#
Java
JavaScript
Objective-C
PHP
Ruby

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

C
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

View functions (Map-Reduce) in JavaScript

SQLScript, R

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

yes

Sharding

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

Multi-source replication

replication via a shared file system

yes

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 in stand-alone mode, Eventual Consistency in replicated setups

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

yes

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.

yes

User concepts

Access control

granular access controls, API key management, content filters

Access rights for users can be defined per database

rights management via user accounts

Roles, resources, and access types

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.