DBMS > GeoMesa vs. OrigoDB vs. Riak KV vs. Snowflake

System Properties Comparison GeoMesa vs. OrigoDB vs. Riak KV vs. Snowflake

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

GeoMesa is a distributed spatio-temporal DBMS based on various systems as storage layer.

A fully ACID in-memory object graph database

Distributed, fault tolerant key-value store

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

Primary database model

Spatial DBMS

Document store
Object oriented DBMS

Key-value store

with links between data sets and object tags for the creation of secondary indexes

Relational DBMS

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

Score	0.78
Rank	#213	Overall
	#4	Spatial DBMS

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

Score	4.10
Rank	#82	Overall
	#9	Key-value stores

Score	121.33
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Website

www.geomesa.org

origodb.com

www.snowflake.com

Technical documentation

www.geomesa.org/documentation/stable/user/index.html

origodb.com/docs

www.tiot.jp/riak-docs/riak/kv/latest

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

CCRi and others

Robert Friberg et al

OpenSource, formerly Basho Technologies

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Initial release

2014

2009

under the name LiveDB

2009

2014

Current release

4.0.5, February 2024

3.2.0, December 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache License 2.0

Open Source

Apache version 2, commercial enterprise edition

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

Scala

Erlang

Server operating systems

Linux
Windows

Linux
OS X

hosted

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

yes

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

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

User defined using .NET types and collections

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

restricted

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

APIs and other access methods

.NET Client API
HTTP API
LINQ

HTTP API
Native Erlang Interface

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

.Net

unofficial client library
C#
C++

unofficial client library
Clojure

unofficial client library
Dart

unofficial client library
Erlang
Go

unofficial client library
Groovy

unofficial client library
Haskell

unofficial client library
Java
JavaScript

unofficial client library
Lisp

unofficial client library
Perl

unofficial client library
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scala

unofficial client library
Smalltalk

unofficial client library

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Erlang

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

Domain Events

yes

pre-commit hooks and post-commit hooks

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

depending on storage layer

horizontal partitioning

client side managed; servers are not synchronized

Sharding

no "single point of failure"

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

depending on storage layer

Source-replica replication

selectable replication factor

yes

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

depending on storage layer

Eventual Consistency

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

depending on model

links between data sets can be stored

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

Write ahead log

yes

In-memory capabilities

Is there an option to define some or all structures to be held in-memory only.

depending on storage layer

yes

User concepts

Access control

yes

depending on the DBMS used for storage

Role based authorization

yes, using Riak Security

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.