DBMS > Faircom DB vs. HEAVY.AI vs. Microsoft SQL Server vs. ToroDB

System Properties Comparison Faircom DB vs. HEAVY.AI vs. Microsoft SQL Server vs. ToroDB

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

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

Description

Native high-speed multi-model DBMS for relational and key-value store data simultaneously accessible through SQL and NoSQL APIs.

A high performance, column-oriented RDBMS, specifically developed to harness the massive parallelism of modern CPU and GPU hardware

Microsofts flagship relational DBMS

A MongoDB-compatible JSON document store, built on top of PostgreSQL

Primary database model

Key-value store
Relational DBMS

Relational DBMS

Document store

Secondary database models

Spatial DBMS

Document store
Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	0.24
Rank	#311	Overall
	#44	Key-value stores
	#140	Relational DBMS

Score	2.10
Rank	#126	Overall
	#61	Relational DBMS

Score	829.80
Rank	#3	Overall
	#3	Relational DBMS

Website

www.faircom.com/products/faircom-db

github.com/heavyai/heavydb
www.heavy.ai

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

github.com/torodb/server

Technical documentation

docs.faircom.com/docs/en/UUID-7446ae34-a1a7-c843-c894-d5322e395184.html

docs.heavy.ai

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

Developer

FairCom Corporation

HEAVY.AI, Inc.

Microsoft

8Kdata

Initial release

1979

2016

1989

2016

Current release

V12, November 2020

5.10, January 2022

SQL Server 2022, November 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Restricted, free version available

Open Source

Apache Version 2; enterprise edition available

commercial

restricted free version is available

Open Source

AGPL-V3

Cloud-based only

Only available as a cloud service

DBaaS offerings (sponsored links)

Database as a Service

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

Implementation language

ANSI C, C++

C++ and CUDA

C++

Java

Server operating systems

AIX
FreeBSD
HP-UX
Linux
NetBSD
OS X
QNX
SCO
Solaris
VxWorks
Windows

easily portable to other OSs

Linux

Linux
Windows

All OS with a Java 7 VM

Data scheme

schema free, schema optional, schema required, partial schema,

yes

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes, ANSI SQL Types, JSON, typed binary structures

yes

string, integer, double, boolean, date, object_id

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, ANSI SQL with proprietary extensions

yes

APIs and other access methods

ADO.NET
Direct SQL
JDBC
JPA
ODBC
RESTful HTTP/JSON API
RESTful MQTT/JSON API
RPC

JDBC
ODBC
Thrift
Vega

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

Supported programming languages

.Net
C
C#
C++
Java
JavaScript (Node.js and browser)
PHP
Python
Visual Basic

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC/Thrift
Python

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

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

.Net, JavaScript, C/C++

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

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

File partitioning, horizontal partitioning, sharding

Customizable business rules for table partitioning

Sharding

Round robin

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

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes, configurable to be parallel or serial, synchronous or asynchronous, uni-directional or bi-directional, ACID-consistent or eventually consistent (with custom conflict resolution).

Multi-source replication

yes, but depending on the SQL-Server Edition

Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency
Tunable consistency per server, database, table, and transaction

Immediate Consistency

Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

tunable from ACID to Eventually Consistent

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

Yes, tunable from durable to delayed durability to in-memory

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 with additional protections for files

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

Access rights for users and roles

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.