DBMS > EsgynDB vs. Graph Engine vs. RavenDB vs. Transbase vs. Yanza

System Properties Comparison EsgynDB vs. Graph Engine vs. RavenDB vs. Transbase vs. Yanza

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Yanza seems to be discontinued. Therefore it is excluded from the DB-Engines Ranking.

Description

Enterprise-class SQL-on-Hadoop solution, powered by Apache Trafodion

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

Open Source Operational and Transactional Enterprise NoSQL Document Database

A resource-optimized, high-performance, universally applicable RDBMS

Time Series DBMS for IoT Applications

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

Document store

Relational DBMS

Time Series DBMS

Secondary database models

Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS
Time Series DBMS

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

Score	0.16
Rank	#329	Overall
	#146	Relational DBMS

Score	0.61
Rank	#240	Overall
	#21	Graph DBMS
	#35	Key-value stores

Score	2.92
Rank	#101	Overall
	#18	Document stores

Score	0.11
Rank	#341	Overall
	#150	Relational DBMS

Website

www.esgyn.cn

www.graphengine.io

ravendb.net

www.transaction.de/en/products/transbase.html

yanza.com

Technical documentation

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

ravendb.net/docs

www.transaction.de/en/products/transbase/features.html

Developer

Esgyn

Microsoft

Hibernating Rhinos

Transaction Software GmbH

Yanza

Initial release

2015

2010

1987

2015

Current release

5.4, July 2022

Transbase 8.3, 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

MIT License

Open Source

AGPL version 3, commercial license available

commercial

free development license

commercial

free version available

Cloud-based only

Only available as a cloud service

but mainly used as a service provided by Yanza

DBaaS offerings (sponsored links)

Database as a Service

Providers of DBaaS offerings, please contact us to be listed.

Implementation language

C++, Java

.NET and C

C and C++

Server operating systems

Linux

.NET

Linux
macOS
Raspberry Pi
Windows

FreeBSD
Linux
macOS
Solaris
Windows

Windows

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

yes

schema-free

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.

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

SQL-like query language (RQL)

yes

APIs and other access methods

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

RESTful HTTP API

.NET Client API
F# Client API
Go Client API
Java Client API
NodeJS Client API
PHP Client API
Python Client API
RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
Proprietary native API

HTTP API

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC/ADO.Net

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

.Net
C#
F#
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
Ruby

C
C#
C++
Java
JavaScript
Kotlin
Objective-C
PHP
Python

any language that supports HTTP calls

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Java Stored Procedures

yes

Triggers

yes

Timer and event based

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

horizontal partitioning

Sharding

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Multi-source replication between multi datacenters

Multi-source replication

Source-replica replication

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Default ACID transactions on the local node (eventually consistent across the cluster). Atomic operations with cluster-wide ACID transactions. Eventual consistency for indexes and full-text search indexes.

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

ACID, Cluster-wide transaction available

yes

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

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

Authorization levels configured per client per database

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.

Related products and services

We invite representatives of vendors of related products to contact us for presenting information about their offerings here.

More resources

Recent citations in the news

Trinity
2 June 2023, Microsoft

Open source Microsoft Graph Engine takes on Neo4j
13 February 2017, InfoWorld

IBM releases Graph, a service that can outperform SQL databases
27 July 2016, GeekWire

Aerospike Is Now a Graph Database, Too
21 June 2023, Datanami

The graph analytics landscape 2019 - DataScienceCentral.com
27 February 2019, Data Science Central

provided by Google News

RavenDB Launches Version 6.0 Lightning Fast Queries, Data Integrations, Corax Indexing Engine, and Sharding
3 October 2023, PR Newswire

RavenDB Welcomes David Baruc as Chief Revenue Officer: Seasoned Tech Leader to Drive Global Sales and ...
13 June 2023, PR Newswire

Install the NoSQL RavenDB Data System
14 May 2021, The New Stack

Oren Eini on RavenDB, Including Consistency Guarantees and C# as the Implementation Language
23 May 2022, InfoQ.com

RavenDB Adds Graph Queries
15 May 2019, Datanami

provided by Google News

Share this page