DBMS > etcd vs. Firebird vs. Hazelcast vs. Snowflake

System Properties Comparison etcd vs. Firebird vs. Hazelcast vs. Snowflake

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

A distributed reliable key-value store

Firebird is an open source RDBMS forked from Borland's InterBase

A widely adopted in-memory data grid

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

Primary database model

Secondary database models

Document store

JSON support with IMDG 3.12

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

Score	7.03
Rank	#54	Overall
	#5	Key-value stores

Score	20.50
Rank	#30	Overall
	#18	Relational DBMS

Score	5.46
Rank	#61	Overall
	#7	Key-value stores

Score	130.36
Rank	#8	Overall
	#5	Relational DBMS

Website

etcd.io
github.com/etcd-io/etcd

www.firebirdsql.org

hazelcast.com

www.snowflake.com

Technical documentation

etcd.io/docs
github.com/etcd-io/etcd/tree/master/Documentation

www.firebirdsql.org/en/reference-manuals

hazelcast.org/imdg/docs

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

Firebird Foundation

Hazelcast

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Initial release

2000

As fork of Borland's InterBase

2008

2014

Current release

3.4, August 2019

5.0.0, January 2024

5.3.6, November 2023

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0

Open Source

Initial Developer's Public License

Open Source

Apache Version 2; commercial licenses available

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

C and C++

Java

Server operating systems

FreeBSD
Linux
Windows

experimental

AIX
FreeBSD
HP-UX
Linux
OS X
server-less

Firebird Embedded Server
Solaris
Unix
Windows

All OS with a Java VM

hosted

Data scheme

schema-free

yes

schema-free

yes

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

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

the object must implement a serialization strategy

yes

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

SQL-like query language

yes

APIs and other access methods

gRPC
JSON over HTTP

ADO.NET
C/C++ API
JDBC

Jaybird
ODBC
OLE DB

JCache
JPA
Memcached protocol
RESTful HTTP API

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

.Net
C
C++
Clojure
Erlang
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Perl
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Rust
Scala
Tcl

C
C#
C++
Delphi
Java
JavaScript

Node.js
Lua
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby

.Net
C#
C++
Clojure
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Python
Scala

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

PSQL

yes

Event Listeners, Executor Services

user defined functions

Triggers

yes, watching key changes

yes

Events

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

Sharding

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Using Raft consensus algorithm to ensure data replication with strong consistency among multiple replicas.

Source-replica replication

yes

Replicated Map

yes

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency selectable by user

Raft Consensus Algorithm

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

one or two-phase-commit; repeatable reads; read commited

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Features a multi-generational MVCC architecture, readers do not block writers

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

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

Role-based access control

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

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.