DBMS > FatDB vs. Hawkular Metrics vs. Memcached vs. PostGIS vs. Trafodion

System Properties Comparison FatDB vs. Hawkular Metrics vs. Memcached vs. PostGIS vs. Trafodion

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.

Apache Trafodion has been retired in 2021. Therefore it is excluded from the DB-Engines Ranking.

Description

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

Hawkular metrics is the metric storage of the Red Hat sponsored Hawkular monitoring system. It is based on Cassandra.

In-memory key-value store, originally intended for caching

Spatial extension of PostgreSQL

Transactional SQL-on-Hadoop DBMS

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Secondary database models

Relational DBMS

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

Score	0.08
Rank	#366	Overall
	#39	Time Series DBMS

Score	18.08
Rank	#32	Overall
	#4	Key-value stores

Score	21.72
Rank	#29	Overall
	#1	Spatial DBMS

Website

Technical documentation

www.hawkular.org/hawkular-metrics/docs/user-guide

github.com/memcached/memcached/wiki

postgis.net/documentation

trafodion.apache.org/documentation.html

Developer

FatCloud

Community supported by Red Hat

Danga Interactive

originally developed by Brad Fitzpatrick for LiveJournal

Apache Software Foundation, originally developed by HP

Initial release

2012

2014

2003

2005

2014

Current release

1.6.27, May 2024

3.4.2, February 2024

2.3.0, February 2019

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache 2.0

Open Source

BSD license

Open Source

GPL v2.0

Open Source

Apache 2.0

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

Java

C++, Java

Server operating systems

Windows

Linux
OS X
Windows

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X
Unix
Windows

Linux

Data scheme

schema-free

yes

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.

yes

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

Via inetgration in SQL Server

yes

APIs and other access methods

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

HTTP REST

Proprietary protocol

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

Go
Java
Python
Ruby

.Net
C
C++
ColdFusion
Erlang
Java
Lisp
Lua
OCaml
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC/ADO.Net

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

via applications

user defined functions

Java Stored Procedures

Triggers

yes

via applications

yes

via Hawkular Alerting

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

based on Cassandra

none

yes

based on PostgreSQL

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

selectable replication factor

based on Cassandra

none

Repcached, a Memcached patch, provides this functionallity

yes

based on PostgreSQL

yes, via HBase

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

via user defined functions and HBase

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

Eventual Consistency

based on Cassandra
Immediate Consistency

based on Cassandra

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

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.

User concepts

Access control

Can implement custom security layer via applications

yes

using SASL (Simple Authentication and Security Layer) protocol

yes

based on PostgreSQL

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

DB-Engines blog posts

Redis extends the lead in the DB-Engines key-value store ranking
3 February 2014, Matthias Gelbmann

New DB-Engines Ranking shows the popularity of database management systems
3 October 2012, Matthias Gelbmann, Paul Andlinger

show all

Spatial database management systems
6 April 2021, Matthias Gelbmann

show all

Recent citations in the news

Waiting for Red Hat OpenShift 4.0? Too late, 4.1 has already arrived… • DEVCLASS
5 June 2019, DevClass

provided by Google News

Why DDoS Threat Actors Are Shifting Their Tactics
15 March 2024, Infosecurity Magazine

Intel Continues To Demonstrate The Importance Of Software Optimizations: Clear Linux + Xeon Max Benchmarks
23 October 2023, Phoronix

Why Redis beats Memcached for caching
14 September 2017, InfoWorld

What are memcached servers, and why are they being used to launch record-setting DDoS attacks?
6 March 2018, GeekWire

Memcached DDoS: The biggest, baddest denial of service attacker yet
1 March 2018, ZDNet

provided by Google News

Evaluating HTAP Databases for Machine Learning Applications
2 November 2016, KDnuggets

Low-latency, distributed database architectures are critical for emerging fog applications
7 April 2022, Embedded Computing Design

provided by Google News

Share this page