DBMS > FoundationDB vs. Netezza vs. Snowflake vs. Teradata

System Properties Comparison FoundationDB vs. Netezza vs. Snowflake vs. Teradata

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Created as commercial project in 2013, FoundationDB has been acquired by Apple in March 2015 and was withdrawn from the market. As a consequence, the product was removed from the DB-Engines ranking. In April 2018, Apple open-sourced FoundationDB and it therefore reappears in the ranking.

Description

Ordered key-value store. Core features are complimented by layers.

Data warehouse and analytics appliance part of IBM PureSystems

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

A hybrid cloud data analytics software platform (Teradata Vantage)

Primary database model

Document store

supported via specific layer
Key-value store
Relational DBMS

supported via specific SQL-layer

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS
Time Series DBMS

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

Score	1.03
Rank	#190	Overall
	#31	Document stores
	#28	Key-value stores
	#89	Relational DBMS

Score	9.06
Rank	#46	Overall
	#29	Relational DBMS

Score	121.33
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Score	45.33
Rank	#21	Overall
	#15	Relational DBMS

Website

github.com/apple/foundationdb

www.ibm.com/products/netezza

www.snowflake.com

www.teradata.com

Technical documentation

apple.github.io/foundationdb

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

docs.teradata.com

Developer

FoundationDB

IBM

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Teradata

Initial release

2013

2000

2014

1984

Current release

6.2.28, November 2020

Teradata Vantage 1.0 MU2, January 2019

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache 2.0

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++

Server operating systems

Linux
OS X
Windows

Linux

included in appliance

hosted

hosted
Linux

Data scheme

schema-free

some layers support schemas

yes

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

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

some layers support typing

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

Join-index to prejoin tables, aggregate index, sparse index, hash index

SQL

Support of SQL

supported in specific SQL layer only

yes

SQL 2016 + extensions

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC
OLE DB

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

.NET Client API
HTTP REST
JDBC
JMS Adapter
ODBC
OLE DB

Supported programming languages

.Net
C
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript

Node.js
PHP
Python
Ruby
Swift

C
C++
Fortran
Java
Lua
Perl
Python
R

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

C
C++
Cobol
Java (JDBC-ODBC)
Perl
PL/1
Python
R
Ruby

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

in SQL-layer only

yes

user defined functions

yes

UDFs, stored procedures, table functions in parallel

Triggers

similar concept for controling cloud resources

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

yes

Sharding

Hashing

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Source-replica replication

yes

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Linearizable consistency

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

in SQL-layer only

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.

yes

User concepts

Access control

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

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.