DBMS > Graph Engine vs. Interbase vs. JaguarDB vs. Snowflake vs. Transbase

System Properties Comparison Graph Engine vs. Interbase vs. JaguarDB vs. Snowflake vs. Transbase

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

Light-weight proven RDBMS

originally from Borland

Performant, highly scalable DBMS for AI and IoT applications

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

A resource-optimized, high-performance, universally applicable RDBMS

Primary database model

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Key-value store
Vector 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	4.61
Rank	#72	Overall
	#39	Relational DBMS

Score	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#60	Key-value stores
	#13	Vector DBMS

Score	121.33
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Score	0.11
Rank	#341	Overall
	#150	Relational DBMS

Website

www.graphengine.io

www.embarcadero.com/products/interbase

www.jaguardb.com

www.snowflake.com

www.transaction.de/en/products/transbase.html

Technical documentation

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

docs.embarcadero.com/products/interbase

www.jaguardb.com/support.html

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

www.transaction.de/en/products/transbase/features.html

Developer

Microsoft

Embarcadero

DataJaguar, Inc.

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Transaction Software GmbH

Initial release

2010

1984

2015

2014

1987

Current release

InterBase 2020, December 2019

3.3 July 2023

Transbase 8.3, 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

MIT License

commercial

Open Source

GPL V3.0

commercial

free development license

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

C++

the server part. Clients available in other languages

C and C++

Server operating systems

.NET

Android
iOS
Linux
OS X
Windows

Linux

hosted

FreeBSD
Linux
macOS
Solaris
Windows

Data scheme

yes

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

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

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.

export as XML data possible

yes

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

A subset of ANSI SQL is implemented

but no views, foreign keys, triggers

yes

APIs and other access methods

RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

JDBC
ODBC

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
Proprietary native API

Supported programming languages

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

.Net
C
C++
Delphi
Java
Object Pascal
PHP
Ruby

C
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scala

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

C
C#
C++
Java
JavaScript
Kotlin
Objective-C
PHP
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Interbase procedure and trigger language

user defined functions

yes

Triggers

yes

similar concept for controling cloud resources

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

horizontal partitioning

none

Sharding

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Interbase Change Views

Multi-source replication

yes

Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Eventual Consistency

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

yes

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Multiversion concurreny control

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

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

rights management via user accounts

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.