DBMS > Drizzle vs. FoundationDB vs. Graph Engine vs. Snowflake

System Properties Comparison Drizzle vs. FoundationDB vs. Graph Engine vs. Snowflake

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.

Created as commercial project in 2013, FoundationDB has been acquired by Apple in March 2015 and was withdrawn from the market. As a consequence, the product was removed from the DB-Engines ranking. In April 2018, Apple open-sourced FoundationDB and it therefore reappears in the ranking.

Description

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

Ordered key-value store. Core features are complimented by layers.

A distributed in-memory data processing engine, underpinned by a strongly-typed RAM store and a general distributed computation engine

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

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Document store

supported via specific layer
Key-value store
Relational DBMS

supported via specific SQL-layer

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

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

Score	1.06
Rank	#185	Overall
	#31	Document stores
	#28	Key-value stores
	#85	Relational DBMS

Score	0.67
Rank	#232	Overall
	#21	Graph DBMS
	#34	Key-value stores

Score	130.36
Rank	#8	Overall
	#5	Relational DBMS

Website

github.com/apple/foundationdb

www.graphengine.io

www.snowflake.com

Technical documentation

apple.github.io/foundationdb

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

Drizzle project, originally started by Brian Aker

FoundationDB

Microsoft

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Initial release

2008

2013

2010

2014

Current release

7.2.4, September 2012

6.2.28, November 2020

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

GNU GPL

Open Source

Apache 2.0

Open Source

MIT License

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++

.NET and C

Server operating systems

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X

Linux
OS X
Windows

.NET

hosted

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

some layers support schemas

yes

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

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

some layers support typing

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

supported in specific SQL layer only

yes

APIs and other access methods

JDBC

RESTful HTTP API

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

C
C++
Java
PHP

.Net
C
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript

Node.js
PHP
Python
Ruby
Swift

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

in SQL-layer only

yes

user defined functions

Triggers

hooks for callbacks inside the server can be used.

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

horizontal partitioning

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

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

Linearizable consistency

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

in SQL-layer only

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

optional: either by committing a write-ahead log (WAL) to the local persistent storage or by dumping the memory to a persistent storage

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

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.