DBMS > Dgraph vs. SiteWhere vs. Snowflake

System Properties Comparison Dgraph vs. SiteWhere vs. Snowflake

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

Distributed and scalable native Graph DBMS

M2M integration platform for persisting/querying time series data

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

Primary database model

Graph DBMS

Time Series DBMS

Relational DBMS

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

Score	1.48
Rank	#158	Overall
	#15	Graph DBMS

Score	0.06
Rank	#367	Overall
	#36	Time Series DBMS

Score	123.20
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Website

dgraph.io

github.com/sitewhere/sitewhere

www.snowflake.com

Technical documentation

dgraph.io/docs

sitewhere1.sitewhere.io/index.html

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

Dgraph Labs, Inc.

SiteWhere

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Initial release

2016

2010

2014

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache 2.0

Open Source

Common Public Attribution License Version 1.0

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

Java

Server operating systems

Linux
OS X
Windows

hosted

Data scheme

schema-free

predefined scheme

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

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

APIs and other access methods

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

HTTP REST

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

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

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

Triggers

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

yes

Sharding

based on HBase

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Synchronous replication via Raft

selectable replication factor

based on HBase

yes

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

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.

User concepts

Access control

Planned for future releases

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

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.