DBMS > Drizzle vs. EXASOL vs. JaguarDB vs. Snowflake vs. TimesTen

System Properties Comparison Drizzle vs. EXASOL vs. JaguarDB vs. Snowflake vs. TimesTen

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Drizzle has published its last release in September 2012. The open-source project is discontinued and Drizzle is excluded from the DB-Engines ranking.

Description

MySQL fork with a pluggable micro-kernel and with an emphasis of performance over compatibility.

High-performance, in-memory, MPP database specifically designed for in-memory analytics.

Performant, highly scalable DBMS for AI and IoT applications

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

In-Memory RDBMS compatible to Oracle

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Key-value store
Vector DBMS

Relational DBMS

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

Score	1.99
Rank	#124	Overall
	#58	Relational DBMS

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

Score	121.33
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Score	1.31
Rank	#163	Overall
	#74	Relational DBMS

Website

www.exasol.com

www.jaguardb.com

www.snowflake.com

www.oracle.com/database/technologies/related/timesten.html

Technical documentation

www.exasol.com/resources

www.jaguardb.com/support.html

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

docs.oracle.com/database/timesten-18.1

Developer

Drizzle project, originally started by Brian Aker

Exasol

DataJaguar, Inc.

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Oracle, TimesTen Performance Software, HP

originally founded in HP Labs it was acquired by Oracle in 2005

Initial release

2008

2000

2015

2014

1998

Current release

7.2.4, September 2012

3.3 July 2023

11 Release 2 (11.2.2.8.0)

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

GNU GPL

commercial

Open Source

GPL V3.0

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

C++

the server part. Clients available in other languages

Server operating systems

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X

Linux

hosted

AIX
HP-UX
Linux
OS X
Solaris SPARC/x86
Windows

Data scheme

yes

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

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.

yes

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

with proprietary extensions

yes

A subset of ANSI SQL is implemented

but no views, foreign keys, triggers

yes

APIs and other access methods

JDBC

.Net
JDBC
ODBC
WebSocket

JDBC
ODBC

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

JDBC
ODBC
ODP.NET
Oracle Call Interface (OCI)

Supported programming languages

C
C++
Java
PHP

Java
Lua
Python
R

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

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

C
C++
Java
PL/SQL

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

PL/SQL

Triggers

hooks for callbacks inside the server can be used.

yes

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

yes

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

Multi-source replication

yes

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Hadoop integration

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Eventual Consistency

Immediate Consistency

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

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

by means of logfiles and checkpoints

In-memory capabilities

Is there an option to define some or all structures to be held in-memory only.

yes

User concepts

Access control

Pluggable authentication mechanisms

e.g. LDAP, HTTP

Access rights for users, groups and roles according to SQL-standard

rights management via user accounts

Users with fine-grained authorization concept, user roles and pluggable authentication

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.