DBMS > Graph Engine vs. Graphite vs. Microsoft SQL Server vs. Oracle Coherence vs. RDFox

System Properties Comparison Graph Engine vs. Graphite vs. Microsoft SQL Server vs. Oracle Coherence vs. RDFox

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

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

Data logging and graphing tool for time series data

The storage layer (fixed size database) is called Whisper

Microsofts flagship relational DBMS

Oracles in-memory data grid solution

High performance knowledge graph and semantic reasoning engine

Primary database model

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

Secondary database models

Document store
Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS

Relational DBMS

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

Score	0.61
Rank	#240	Overall
	#21	Graph DBMS
	#35	Key-value stores

Score	4.57
Rank	#73	Overall
	#5	Time Series DBMS

Score	824.29
Rank	#3	Overall
	#3	Relational DBMS

Score	1.92
Rank	#130	Overall
	#22	Key-value stores

Score	0.23
Rank	#308	Overall
	#25	Graph DBMS
	#14	RDF stores

Website

www.graphengine.io

github.com/graphite-project/graphite-web

www.microsoft.com/en-us/sql-server

www.oracle.com/java/coherence

www.oxfordsemantic.tech

Technical documentation

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

graphite.readthedocs.io

learn.microsoft.com/en-US/sql/sql-server

docs.oracle.com/en/middleware/standalone/coherence

docs.oxfordsemantic.tech

Developer

Microsoft

Chris Davis

Microsoft

Oracle

Oxford Semantic Technologies

Initial release

2010

2006

1989

2007

2017

Current release

SQL Server 2022, November 2022

14.1, August 2023

6.0, Septermber 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

MIT License

Open Source

Apache 2.0

commercial

restricted free version is available

commercial

Cloud-based only

Only available as a cloud service

DBaaS offerings (sponsored links)

Database as a Service

Providers of DBaaS offerings, please contact us to be listed.

Implementation language

.NET and C

Python

C++

Java

C++

Server operating systems

.NET

Linux
Unix

Linux
Windows

All OS with a Java VM

Linux
macOS
Windows

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

yes

RDF schemas

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

Numeric data only

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

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

APIs and other access methods

RESTful HTTP API

HTTP API
Sockets

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
OLE DB
Tabular Data Stream (TDS)

JCache
JPA
RESTful HTTP API

RESTful HTTP API
SPARQL 1.1

Supported programming languages

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

C#
C++
Delphi
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Visual Basic

.Net
C++
Java

C
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Transact SQL, .NET languages, R, Python and (with SQL Server 2019) Java

Triggers

yes

Live Events

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

horizontal partitioning

none

tables can be distributed across several files (horizontal partitioning); sharding through federation

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

yes, but depending on the SQL-Server Edition

yes, with selectable consistency level

replication via a shared file system

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

none

Immediate Consistency

Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

Immediate Consistency in stand-alone mode, Eventual Consistency in replicated setups

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

configurable

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

locking

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

optionally

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

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

authentification to access the cache via certificates or http basic authentication

Roles, resources, and access types

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.