DBMS > Dgraph vs. etcd vs. FatDB vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. Yaacomo

System Properties Comparison Dgraph vs. etcd vs. FatDB vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. Yaacomo

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.

Yaacomo seems to be discontinued and is removed from the DB-Engines ranking

Description

Distributed and scalable native Graph DBMS

A distributed reliable key-value store

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

A Wide Column Store for rapid development using massive semi-structured datasets

OpenCL based in-memory RDBMS, designed for efficiently utilizing the hardware via parallel computing

Primary database model

Graph DBMS

Key-value store

Document store
Key-value store

Wide column store

Relational DBMS

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

Score	1.53
Rank	#152	Overall
	#15	Graph DBMS

Score	7.03
Rank	#54	Overall
	#5	Key-value stores

Score	4.04
Rank	#77	Overall
	#6	Wide column stores

Website

dgraph.io

etcd.io
github.com/etcd-io/etcd

azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/storage/tables

yaacomo.com

Technical documentation

dgraph.io/docs

etcd.io/docs
github.com/etcd-io/etcd/tree/master/Documentation

Developer

Dgraph Labs, Inc.

FatCloud

Microsoft

Q2WEB GmbH

Initial release

2016

2012

2009

Current release

3.4, August 2019

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache 2.0

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0

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

Server operating systems

Linux
OS X
Windows

FreeBSD
Linux
Windows

experimental

Windows

hosted

Android
Linux
Windows

Data scheme

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

Via inetgration in SQL Server

yes

APIs and other access methods

GraphQL query language
gRPC (using protocol buffers) API
HTTP API

gRPC
JSON over HTTP

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

RESTful HTTP API

JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

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

.Net
C
C++
Clojure
Erlang
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Perl
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Rust
Scala
Tcl

.Net
C#
C++
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
Ruby

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

via applications

Triggers

yes, watching key changes

yes

via applications

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

yes

Sharding

Implicit feature of the cloud service

horizontal partitioning

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Synchronous replication via Raft

Using Raft consensus algorithm to ensure data replication with strong consistency among multiple replicas.

selectable replication factor

yes

implicit feature of the cloud service. Replication either local, cross-facility or geo-redundant.

Source-replica replication

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

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

optimistic locking

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

Planned for future releases

Can implement custom security layer via applications

Access rights based on private key authentication or shared access signatures

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

Dgraph on AWS: Setting up a horizontally scalable graph database | Amazon Web Services
1 September 2020, AWS Blog

The 12 Best Graph Databases to Consider for 2024
22 October 2023, Solutions Review

10 Best Graph Databases to Consider for 2023
25 November 2023, Analytics Insight

Dgraph raises $11.5 million for scalable graph database solutions
31 July 2019, VentureBeat

provided by Google News

Monitor Amazon EKS Control Plane metrics using AWS Open Source monitoring services | Amazon Web Services
12 October 2023, AWS Blog

ETCD guidelines: RBI seeks to balance rupee stability, competitiveness | Policy Circle
8 April 2024, Policy Circle

Apache APISIX Without etcd?
27 July 2023, hackernoon.com

RBI reiterates need for underlying forex exposure for rupee derivatives transactions | Stock Market News
5 April 2024, Mint

Killing a market, softly: How an RBI communique could end India's thriving ETCD market
7 April 2024, IndiaTimes

provided by Google News

Working with Azure to Use and Manage Data Lakes
7 March 2024, Simplilearn

How to Use C# Azure.Data.Tables SDK with Azure Cosmos DB
9 July 2021, hackernoon.com

How to use Azure Table storage in .Net
14 January 2019, InfoWorld

Quick Guide to Azure Storage Pricing
16 May 2023, DevOps.com

How to write data to Azure Table Store with an Azure Function
14 April 2017, Experts Exchange

provided by Google News

Share this page