DBMS > EJDB vs. FatDB vs. Microsoft SQL Server vs. Snowflake vs. SQLite

System Properties Comparison EJDB vs. FatDB vs. Microsoft SQL Server vs. Snowflake vs. SQLite

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

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

Description

Embeddable document-store database library with JSON representation of queries (in MongoDB style)

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

Microsofts flagship relational DBMS

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

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

Primary database model

Document store

Document store
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	0.27
Rank	#297	Overall
	#44	Document stores

Score	824.29
Rank	#3	Overall
	#3	Relational DBMS

Score	121.33
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Score	114.32
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Website

github.com/Softmotions/ejdb

www.microsoft.com/en-us/sql-server

www.snowflake.com

www.sqlite.org

Technical documentation

github.com/Softmotions/ejdb/blob/master/README.md

learn.microsoft.com/en-US/sql/sql-server

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

Developer

Softmotions

FatCloud

Microsoft

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Initial release

2012

1989

2014

2000

Current release

SQL Server 2022, November 2022

3.45.3 (15 April 2024), April 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

GPLv2

commercial

restricted free version is available

commercial

Open Source

Public Domain

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.

SQLServer Flex @ STACKIT offers a managed version of SQL Server with adjustable CPU, RAM, storage amount and speed, in enterprise grade to perfectly match all application requirements. All services are 100% GDPR-compliant.

Implementation language

C++

Server operating systems

server-less

Windows

Linux
Windows

hosted

server-less

Data scheme

schema-free

yes

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

yes

dynamic column types

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

string, integer, double, bool, date, object_id

yes

not rigid because of 'dynamic typing' concept.

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

Via inetgration in SQL Server

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

APIs and other access methods

in-process shared library

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

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
OLE DB
Tabular Data Stream (TDS)

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

Supported programming languages

Actionscript
C
C#
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Lua
Objective-C
Pike
Python
Ruby

C#
C++
Delphi
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Visual Basic

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Actionscript
Ada
Basic
C
C#
C++
D
Delphi
Forth
Fortran
Haskell
Java
JavaScript
Lisp
Lua
MatLab
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
PL/SQL
Python
R
Ruby
Scala
Scheme
Smalltalk
Tcl

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

via applications

Transact SQL, .NET languages, R, Python and (with SQL Server 2019) Java

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

via applications

yes

similar concept for controling cloud resources

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

Sharding

tables can be distributed across several files (horizontal partitioning); sharding through federation

yes

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

selectable replication factor

yes, but depending on the SQL-Server Edition

yes

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

typically not needed, however similar functionality with collection joins possible

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Read/Write Locking

yes

via file-system locks

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

Can implement custom security layer via applications

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

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.