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

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

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

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

High performant column-oriented DBMS for analytic workloads using MySQL or PostgreSQL as a frontend

A fully ACID in-memory object graph database

Open Source Operational and Transactional Enterprise NoSQL Document Database

Primary database model

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

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

Score	0.96
Rank	#194	Overall
	#91	Relational DBMS

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

Score	2.92
Rank	#101	Overall
	#18	Document stores

Website

www.graphengine.io

ignitetech.com/softwarelibrary/infobrightdb

origodb.com

ravendb.net

Technical documentation

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

origodb.com/docs

ravendb.net/docs

Developer

Microsoft

Ignite Technologies Inc.; formerly InfoBright Inc.

Robert Friberg et al

Hibernating Rhinos

Initial release

2010

2005

2009

under the name LiveDB

2010

Current release

5.4, July 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

MIT License

commercial

The open source (GPLv2) version did not support inserts/updates/deletes and was discontinued with July 2016

Open Source

AGPL version 3, commercial license available

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

Server operating systems

.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

Knowledge Grid Technology used instead

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

SQL-like query language (RQL)

APIs and other access methods

RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

.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

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

.Net
C
C#
C++
D
Eiffel
Erlang
Haskell
Java
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scheme
Tcl

.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

none

horizontal partitioning

client side managed; servers are not synchronized

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

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

Immediate Consistency

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

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

exploiting MySQL or PostgreSQL frontend capabilities

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

Trinity
2 June 2023, 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

RavenDB Welcomes David Baruc as Chief Revenue Officer: Seasoned Tech Leader to Drive Global Sales and ...
13 June 2023, PR Newswire

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

RavenDB Adds Graph Queries
15 May 2019, Datanami

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

provided by Google News

Share this page