DBMS > Drizzle vs. FatDB vs. Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB vs. RDFox

System Properties Comparison Drizzle vs. FatDB vs. Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB vs. RDFox

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

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.

FatDB/FatCloud has ceased operations as a company with February 2014. FatDB is discontinued and excluded from the ranking.

Description

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

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

Globally distributed, horizontally scalable, multi-model database service

High performance knowledge graph and semantic reasoning engine

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Document store
Key-value store

Document store
Graph DBMS
Key-value store
Wide column store

Graph DBMS
RDF store

Secondary database models

Spatial DBMS

Relational DBMS

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

Score	29.04
Rank	#27	Overall
	#4	Document stores
	#2	Graph DBMS
	#3	Key-value stores
	#3	Wide column stores

Score	0.23
Rank	#308	Overall
	#25	Graph DBMS
	#14	RDF stores

Website

azure.microsoft.com/services/cosmos-db

www.oxfordsemantic.tech

Technical documentation

learn.microsoft.com/azure/cosmos-db

docs.oxfordsemantic.tech

Developer

Drizzle project, originally started by Brian Aker

FatCloud

Microsoft

Oxford Semantic Technologies

Initial release

2008

2012

2014

2017

Current release

7.2.4, September 2012

6.0, Septermber 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

GNU GPL

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++

Server operating systems

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X

Windows

hosted

Linux
macOS
Windows

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

yes

RDF schemas

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

JSON types

yes

Secondary indexes

yes

All properties auto-indexed by default

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

with proprietary extensions

Via inetgration in SQL Server

SQL-like query language

APIs and other access methods

JDBC

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

DocumentDB API
Graph API (Gremlin)
MongoDB API
RESTful HTTP API
Table API

RESTful HTTP API
SPARQL 1.1

Supported programming languages

C
C++
Java
PHP

.Net
C#
Java
JavaScript
JavaScript (Node.js)
MongoDB client drivers written for various programming languages
Python

C
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

via applications

JavaScript

Triggers

hooks for callbacks inside the server can be used.

yes

via applications

JavaScript

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

Implicit feature of the cloud service

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

selectable replication factor

yes

Implicit feature of the cloud service

replication via a shared file system

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

with Hadoop integration

Integration with Hadoop/HDInsight on Azure*

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

Bounded Staleness
Consistent Prefix
Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

Consistency level configurable on request level
Session Consistency

Immediate Consistency in stand-alone mode, Eventual Consistency in replicated setups

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Multi-item ACID transactions with snapshot isolation within a partition

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

Pluggable authentication mechanisms

e.g. LDAP, HTTP

Can implement custom security layer via applications

Access rights can be defined down to the item level

Roles, resources, and access types

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.