DBMS > FatDB vs. MySQL vs. TinkerGraph vs. Trafodion

System Properties Comparison FatDB vs. MySQL vs. TinkerGraph vs. Trafodion

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

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.

Widely used open source RDBMS

A lightweight, in-memory graph engine that serves as a reference implementation of the TinkerPop3 API

Transactional SQL-on-Hadoop DBMS

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Key/Value like access via memcached API

Graph DBMS

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	1061.34
Rank	#2	Overall
	#2	Relational DBMS

Score	0.13
Rank	#345	Overall
	#35	Graph DBMS

Website

www.mysql.com

tinkerpop.apache.org/docs/current/reference/#tinkergraph-gremlin

trafodion.apache.org

Technical documentation

dev.mysql.com/doc

trafodion.apache.org/documentation.html

Developer

FatCloud

Oracle

since 2010, originally MySQL AB, then Sun

Apache Software Foundation, originally developed by HP

Initial release

2012

1995

2009

2014

Current release

8.4.0, April 2024

2.3.0, February 2019

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

GPL version 2. Commercial licenses with extended functionallity are available

Open Source

Apache 2.0

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.

Aiven for MySQL: Fully managed MySQL, deployable in the cloud of your choice, with seamless integrations and lightning-fast setup.

Implementation language

C and C++

Java

C++, Java

Server operating systems

Windows

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

Linux

Data scheme

schema-free

yes

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

with proprietary extensions

yes

APIs and other access methods

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

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
Proprietary native API

TinkerPop 3

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

Ada
C
C#
C++
D
Delphi
Eiffel
Erlang
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scheme
Tcl

Groovy
Java

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC/ADO.Net

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

via applications

yes

proprietary syntax

Java Stored Procedures

Triggers

yes

via applications

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

horizontal partitioning, sharding with MySQL Cluster or MySQL Fabric

none

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

selectable replication factor

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

none

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

Immediate Consistency

none

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

not for MyISAM storage engine

yes

Relationships in graphs

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

not for MyISAM storage engine

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

table locks or row locks depending on storage engine

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

optional

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

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

no user groups or roles

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.