DBMS > EJDB vs. Google Cloud Bigtable vs. Microsoft SQL Server vs. mSQL vs. OrigoDB

System Properties Comparison EJDB vs. Google Cloud Bigtable vs. Microsoft SQL Server vs. mSQL vs. OrigoDB

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

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

Google's NoSQL Big Data database service. It's the same database that powers many core Google services, including Search, Analytics, Maps, and Gmail.

Microsofts flagship relational DBMS

mSQL (Mini SQL) is a simple and lightweight RDBMS

A fully ACID in-memory object graph database

Primary database model

Document store

Key-value store
Wide column store

Relational DBMS

Document store
Object oriented DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	0.30
Rank	#294	Overall
	#44	Document stores

Score	3.58
Rank	#92	Overall
	#14	Key-value stores
	#8	Wide column stores

Score	829.80
Rank	#3	Overall
	#3	Relational DBMS

Score	1.67
Rank	#151	Overall
	#70	Relational DBMS

Score	0.03
Rank	#378	Overall
	#51	Document stores
	#18	Object oriented DBMS

Website

github.com/Softmotions/ejdb

cloud.google.com/bigtable

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

hughestech.com.au/products/msql

origodb.com

Technical documentation

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

cloud.google.com/bigtable/docs

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

origodb.com/docs

Developer

Softmotions

Google

Microsoft

Hughes Technologies

Robert Friberg et al

Initial release

2012

2015

1989

1994

2009

under the name LiveDB

Current release

SQL Server 2022, November 2022

4.4, October 2021

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

GPLv2

commercial

restricted free version is available

commercial

free licenses can be provided

Open Source

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

server-less

hosted

Linux
Windows

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

Linux
Windows

Data scheme

schema-free

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

string, integer, double, bool, date, object_id

yes

User defined using .NET types and collections

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

can be achieved using .NET

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

A subset of ANSI SQL is implemented

no subqueries, aggregate functions, views, foreign keys, triggers

APIs and other access methods

in-process shared library

gRPC (using protocol buffers) API
HappyBase (Python library)
HBase compatible API (Java)

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

JDBC
ODBC

.NET Client API
HTTP API
LINQ

Supported programming languages

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

C#
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

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

C
C++
Delphi
Java
Perl
PHP
Tcl

.Net

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

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

yes

Triggers

yes

Domain Events

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

Sharding

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

none

horizontal partitioning

client side managed; servers are not synchronized

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

Internal replication in Colossus, and regional replication between two clusters in different zones

yes, but depending on the SQL-Server Edition

none

Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate consistency (for a single cluster), Eventual consistency (for two or more replicated clusters)

Immediate Consistency

none

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

typically not needed, however similar functionality with collection joins possible

yes

depending on model

Transaction concepts

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

Atomic single-row operations

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Read/Write Locking

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

Write ahead log

In-memory capabilities

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

yes

User concepts

Access control

Access rights for users, groups and roles based on Google Cloud Identity and Access Management (IAM)

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

Role based authorization

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.