DBMS > FatDB vs. Google Cloud Datastore vs. Hyprcubd vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. YottaDB

System Properties Comparison FatDB vs. Google Cloud Datastore vs. Hyprcubd vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. YottaDB

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.

Hyprcubd seems to be discontinued. Therefore it is excluded from the DB-Engines ranking.

Description

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

Automatically scaling NoSQL Database as a Service (DBaaS) on the Google Cloud Platform

Serverless Time Series DBMS

A Wide Column Store for rapid development using massive semi-structured datasets

A fast and solid embedded Key-value store

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Secondary database models

Relational DBMS

using the Octo plugin

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

Score	4.13
Rank	#71	Overall
	#12	Document stores

Score	3.55
Rank	#80	Overall
	#6	Wide column stores

Score	0.21
Rank	#309	Overall
	#43	Key-value stores

Website

cloud.google.com/datastore

hyprcubd.com (offline)

azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/storage/tables

yottadb.com

Technical documentation

cloud.google.com/datastore/docs

yottadb.com/resources/documentation

Developer

FatCloud

Google

Hyprcubd, Inc.

Microsoft

YottaDB, LLC

Initial release

2012

2008

2012

2001

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

AGPL 3.0

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

Server operating systems

Windows

hosted

Docker
Linux

Data scheme

schema-free

yes

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

yes, details here

yes

time, int, uint, float, string

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

Via inetgration in SQL Server

SQL-like query language (GQL)

SQL-like query language

by using the Octo plugin

APIs and other access methods

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

gRPC (using protocol buffers) API
RESTful HTTP/JSON API

gRPC (https)

RESTful HTTP API

PostgreSQL wire protocol

using the Octo plugin
Proprietary protocol

Supported programming languages

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

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

C
Go
JavaScript (Node.js)
Lua
M
Perl
Python
Rust

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

via applications

using Google App Engine

Triggers

yes

via applications

Callbacks using the Google Apps Engine

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

Implicit feature of the cloud service

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

selectable replication factor

Multi-source replication using Paxos

yes

implicit feature of the cloud service. Replication either local, cross-facility or geo-redundant.

yes

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

using Google Cloud Dataflow

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on type of query and configuration

Strong Consistency is default for entity lookups and queries within an Entity Group (but can instead be made eventually consistent). Other queries are always eventual consistent.

Eventual Consistency

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

via ReferenceProperties or Ancestor paths

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Serializable Isolation within Transactions, Read Committed outside of Transactions

optimistic locking

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

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

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

token access

Access rights based on private key authentication or shared access signatures

Users and groups based on OS-security mechanisms

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

Google Cloud vs AWS: Which Cloud Computing Platform is Better?
11 September 2024, Cloudwards

Google Gets Rid of Fees To Transfer Data Out of Cloud Platform
12 January 2024, Spiceworks News and Insights

Best cloud storage of 2024
13 September 2024, TechRadar

Google App Engine
26 April 2024, TechTarget

17 Top Cloud Storage Companies to Know
9 April 2024, Built In

provided by Google News

Hyprcubd CEO: From psychotherapist to tech startup founder
8 January 2021, The Business Journals

provided by Google News

How to use Azure Table storage in .Net
10 July 2024, InfoWorld

Working with Azure to Use and Manage Data Lakes
23 July 2024, Simplilearn

Azure Cosmos DB Data Migration tool imports from Azure Table storage
5 May 2015, Microsoft

How to write data to Azure Table Store with an Azure Function
14 April 2017, Experts Exchange

Testing Precompiled Azure Functions Locally with Storage Emulator
8 March 2018, Visual Studio Magazine

provided by Google News

Share this page