DBMS > Dragonfly vs. JaguarDB vs. OrigoDB vs. Snowflake

System Properties Comparison Dragonfly vs. JaguarDB vs. OrigoDB vs. Snowflake

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

A drop-in Redis replacement that scales vertically to support millions of operations per second and terabyte sized workloads, all on a single instance

Performant, highly scalable DBMS for AI and IoT applications

A fully ACID in-memory object graph database

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

Primary database model

Key-value store

Key-value store
Vector DBMS

Document store
Object oriented DBMS

Relational DBMS

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

Score	0.49
Rank	#261	Overall
	#38	Key-value stores

Score	0.06
Rank	#381	Overall
	#59	Key-value stores
	#14	Vector DBMS

Score	0.06
Rank	#380	Overall
	#50	Document stores
	#18	Object oriented DBMS

Score	130.36
Rank	#8	Overall
	#5	Relational DBMS

Website

github.com/dragonflydb/dragonfly
www.dragonflydb.io

www.jaguardb.com

origodb.com

www.snowflake.com

Technical documentation

www.dragonflydb.io/docs

www.jaguardb.com/support.html

origodb.com/docs

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

DragonflyDB team and community contributors

DataJaguar, Inc.

Robert Friberg et al

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Initial release

2023

2015

2009

under the name LiveDB

2014

Current release

1.0, March 2023

3.3 July 2023

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

BSL 1.1

Open Source

GPL V3.0

Open Source

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

C++

the server part. Clients available in other languages

Server operating systems

Linux

Linux
Windows

hosted

Data scheme

scheme-free

yes

support of semi-structured data formats (JSON, XML, Avro)

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

strings, hashes, lists, sets, sorted sets, bit arrays

yes

User defined using .NET types and collections

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.

can be achieved using .NET

yes

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

Proprietary protocol

RESP - REdis Serialization Protocol

JDBC
ODBC

.NET Client API
HTTP API
LINQ

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

C
C#
C++
Clojure
D
Dart
Elixir
Erlang
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Lisp
Lua
Objective-C
Perl
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Rust
Scala
Swift
Tcl

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

.Net

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Lua

yes

user defined functions

Triggers

publish/subscribe channels provide some trigger functionality

yes

Domain Events

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

horizontal partitioning

client side managed; servers are not synchronized

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Source-replica replication

Multi-source replication

Source-replica replication

yes

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Eventual Consistency

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

depending on model

yes

Transaction concepts

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

Atomic execution of command blocks and scripts

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes, strict serializability by the server

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

Write ahead log

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

Password-based authentication

rights management via user accounts

Role based authorization

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.