DBMS > FatDB vs. OrigoDB vs. Snowflake vs. SQLite vs. Yaacomo

System Properties Comparison FatDB vs. OrigoDB vs. Snowflake vs. SQLite vs. Yaacomo

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.

Yaacomo seems to be discontinued and is removed from the DB-Engines ranking

Description

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

A fully ACID in-memory object graph database

Cloud-based data warehousing service for structured and semi-structured data

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

OpenCL based in-memory RDBMS, designed for efficiently utilizing the hardware via parallel computing

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Document store
Object oriented DBMS

Relational DBMS

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

Score	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#53	Document stores
	#20	Object oriented DBMS

Score	121.33
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Score	114.32
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Website

origodb.com

www.snowflake.com

www.sqlite.org

yaacomo.com

Technical documentation

origodb.com/docs

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

Developer

FatCloud

Robert Friberg et al

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Q2WEB GmbH

Initial release

2012

2009

under the name LiveDB

2014

2000

2009

Current release

3.45.3 (15 April 2024), April 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Public Domain

commercial

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

Linux
Windows

hosted

server-less

Android
Linux
Windows

Data scheme

schema-free

yes

support of semi-structured data formats (JSON, XML, Avro)

yes

dynamic column types

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

User defined using .NET types and collections

yes

not rigid because of 'dynamic typing' concept.

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.

can be achieved using .NET

yes

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

Via inetgration in SQL Server

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

yes

APIs and other access methods

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

.NET Client API
HTTP API
LINQ

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

.Net

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Actionscript
Ada
Basic
C
C#
C++
D
Delphi
Forth
Fortran
Haskell
Java
JavaScript
Lisp
Lua
MatLab
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
PL/SQL
Python
R
Ruby
Scala
Scheme
Smalltalk
Tcl

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

via applications

yes

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

via applications

yes

Domain Events

similar concept for controling cloud resources

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

horizontal partitioning

client side managed; servers are not synchronized

yes

none

horizontal partitioning

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

selectable replication factor

Source-replica replication

yes

none

Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

depending on model

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

via file-system locks

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

Write ahead log

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

Role based authorization

Users with fine-grained authorization concept, user roles and pluggable authentication

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.