DBMS > CrateDB vs. SWC-DB vs. TinkerGraph vs. Transbase

System Properties Comparison CrateDB vs. SWC-DB vs. TinkerGraph vs. Transbase

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

Distributed Database based on Lucene

A high performance, scalable Wide Column DBMS

A lightweight, in-memory graph engine that serves as a reference implementation of the TinkerPop3 API

A resource-optimized, high-performance, universally applicable RDBMS

Primary database model

Document store
Spatial DBMS
Search engine
Time Series DBMS
Vector DBMS

Wide column store

Graph DBMS

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Relational DBMS

Time Series DBMS

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

Score	0.71
Rank	#227	Overall
	#37	Document stores
	#5	Spatial DBMS
	#16	Search engines
	#19	Time Series DBMS
	#10	Vector DBMS

Score	0.08
Rank	#364	Overall
	#13	Wide column stores

Score	0.13
Rank	#345	Overall
	#35	Graph DBMS

Score	0.17
Rank	#334	Overall
	#148	Relational DBMS

Website

cratedb.com

github.com/kashirin-alex/swc-db
www.swcdb.org

tinkerpop.apache.org/docs/current/reference/#tinkergraph-gremlin

www.transaction.de/en/products/transbase.html

Technical documentation

cratedb.com/docs

www.transaction.de/en/products/transbase/features.html

Developer

Crate

Alex Kashirin

Transaction Software GmbH

Initial release

2013

2020

2009

1987

Current release

0.5, April 2021

Transbase 8.3, 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

GPL V3

Open Source

Apache 2.0

commercial

free development license

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++

Java

C and C++

Server operating systems

All Operating Systems, including Kubernetes with CrateDB Kubernetes Operator support

Linux

FreeBSD
Linux
macOS
Solaris
Windows

Data scheme

Flexible Schema (defined schema, partial schema, schema free)

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.

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes, but no triggers and constraints, and PostgreSQL compatibility

SQL-like query language

yes

APIs and other access methods

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
PostgreSQL wire protocol
Prometheus Remote Read/Write
RESTful HTTP API

Proprietary protocol
Thrift

TinkerPop 3

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
Proprietary native API

Supported programming languages

.NET
Erlang
Go

community maintained client
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)

community maintained client
Perl

community maintained client
PHP
Python
R
Ruby

community maintained client
Scala

community maintained client

C++

Groovy
Java

C
C#
C++
Java
JavaScript
Kotlin
Objective-C
PHP
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions (Javascript)

yes

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Configurable replication on table/partition-level

none

Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Eventual Consistency
Read-after-write consistency on record level

Immediate Consistency

none

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Relationships in graphs

yes

Transaction concepts

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

unique row identifiers can be used for implementing an optimistic concurrency control strategy

yes

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

optional

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

rights management via user accounts

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.

Related products and services

We invite representatives of vendors of related products to contact us for presenting information about their offerings here.

More resources

Recent citations in the news

AWS Marketplace: CrateDB Cloud Comments
12 June 2024, AWS Blog

CrateDB Announces Availability of CrateDB on Google Cloud Marketplace
8 April 2024, Datanami

CrateDB Partners with HiveMQ to Deliver a Seamless Data Management Architecture for IoT
25 March 2024, PR Newswire

How We Designed CrateDB as a Realtime SQL DBMS for the Internet of Things
29 August 2017, The New Stack

Crate.io Introduces CrateDB 2.0 Enterprise and Open Source Editions
16 May 2017, businesswire.com

provided by Google News

2022 All O-Zone Football Team
17 December 2022, Ozarks Sports Zone

provided by Google News

Unit testing Apache TinkerPop transactions: From TinkerGraph to Amazon Neptune | Amazon Web Services
3 June 2024, AWS Blog

Simple Deployment of a Graph Database: JanusGraph | by Edward Elson Kosasih
12 October 2020, Towards Data Science

Why developers like Apache TinkerPop, an open source framework for graph computing | Amazon Web Services
27 September 2021, AWS Blog

InfiniteGraph Gets Support for Common Graph Database Language and More
21 February 2012, SiliconANGLE News

Introducing Gremlin query hints for Amazon Neptune | AWS Database Blog
26 February 2019, AWS Blog

provided by Google News

Share this page