DBMS > Firebolt vs. Graph Engine vs. OrigoDB vs. RavenDB

System Properties Comparison Firebolt vs. Graph Engine vs. OrigoDB vs. RavenDB

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

Highly scalable cloud data warehouse and analytics product

Forked from Clickhouse

A distributed in-memory data processing engine, underpinned by a strongly-typed RAM store and a general distributed computation engine

A fully ACID in-memory object graph database

Open Source Operational and Transactional Enterprise NoSQL Document Database

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

Document store
Object oriented DBMS

Document store

Secondary database models

Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS
Time Series DBMS

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

Score	1.73
Rank	#140	Overall
	#63	Relational DBMS

Score	0.67
Rank	#232	Overall
	#21	Graph DBMS
	#34	Key-value stores

Score	0.06
Rank	#380	Overall
	#50	Document stores
	#18	Object oriented DBMS

Score	2.84
Rank	#101	Overall
	#18	Document stores

Website

Technical documentation

docs.firebolt.io

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

origodb.com/docs

ravendb.net/docs

Developer

Firebolt Analytics Inc.

Microsoft

Robert Friberg et al

Hibernating Rhinos

Initial release

2020

2010

2009

under the name LiveDB

2010

Current release

5.4, July 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

MIT License

Open Source

AGPL version 3, commercial license available

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

.NET and C

Server operating systems

hosted

.NET

Linux
Windows

Linux
macOS
Raspberry Pi
Windows

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

User defined using .NET types and collections

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

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

SQL-like query language (RQL)

APIs and other access methods

.Net
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

RESTful HTTP API

.NET Client API
HTTP API
LINQ

.NET Client API
F# Client API
Go Client API
Java Client API
NodeJS Client API
PHP Client API
Python Client API
RESTful HTTP API

Supported programming languages

Go
JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

.Net

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

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Triggers

yes

Domain Events

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

horizontal partitioning

client side managed; servers are not synchronized

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

depending on storage layer

Source-replica replication

Multi-source replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Default ACID transactions on the local node (eventually consistent across the cluster). Atomic operations with cluster-wide ACID transactions. Eventual consistency for indexes and full-text search indexes.

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

depending on model

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

ACID, Cluster-wide transaction available

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

optional: either by committing a write-ahead log (WAL) to the local persistent storage or by dumping the memory to a persistent storage

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

Role based authorization

Authorization levels configured per client per database

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

10 Best Data Pipeline Tools of 2024 to Boost Your Productivity
20 February 2024, Datamation

Cloud data unicorn Firebolt fires dozens of employees
7 September 2022, CTech

Firebolt, a data warehouse startup, raises $100M at a $1.4B valuation for faster, cheaper analytics on large data sets
26 January 2022, TechCrunch

Firebolt vs Snowflake | Data Warehousing Platform Comparison
1 April 2022, TechRepublic

Firebolt, Israeli Cloud Data Warehouse Startup Forklifts Forward
5 January 2021, Forbes

provided by Google News

Trinity
30 October 2010, Microsoft

Open source Microsoft Graph Engine takes on Neo4j
13 February 2017, InfoWorld

IBM releases Graph, a service that can outperform SQL databases
27 July 2016, GeekWire

Aerospike Is Now a Graph Database, Too
21 June 2023, Datanami

The graph analytics landscape 2019 - DataScienceCentral.com
27 February 2019, Data Science Central

provided by Google News

RavenDB Launches Version 6.0 Lightning Fast Queries, Data Integrations, Corax Indexing Engine, and Sharding
3 October 2023, PR Newswire

Install the NoSQL RavenDB Data System
14 May 2021, The New Stack

RavenDB Adds Graph Queries
15 May 2019, Datanami

Review: NoSQL database RavenDB
20 March 2019, TechGenix

How I Created a RavenDB Python Client
23 September 2016, Visual Studio Magazine

provided by Google News

Share this page