DBMS > etcd vs. Graph Engine vs. Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB vs. TinkerGraph

System Properties Comparison etcd vs. Graph Engine vs. Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB vs. TinkerGraph

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

Globally distributed, horizontally scalable, multi-model database service

A lightweight, in-memory graph engine that serves as a reference implementation of the TinkerPop3 API

Primary database model

Key-value store

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

Document store
Graph DBMS
Key-value store
Wide column store

Graph DBMS

Secondary database models

Spatial DBMS

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

Score	7.25
Rank	#54	Overall
	#5	Key-value stores

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

Score	29.04
Rank	#27	Overall
	#4	Document stores
	#2	Graph DBMS
	#3	Key-value stores
	#3	Wide column stores

Score	0.08
Rank	#348	Overall
	#35	Graph DBMS

Website

etcd.io
github.com/etcd-io/etcd

www.graphengine.io

azure.microsoft.com/services/cosmos-db

tinkerpop.apache.org/docs/current/reference/#tinkergraph-gremlin

Technical documentation

etcd.io/docs
github.com/etcd-io/etcd/tree/master/Documentation

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

learn.microsoft.com/azure/cosmos-db

Developer

Microsoft

Initial release

2010

2014

2009

Current release

3.4, August 2019

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0

Open Source

MIT License

commercial

Open Source

Apache 2.0

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

Java

Server operating systems

FreeBSD
Linux
Windows

experimental

.NET

hosted

Data scheme

schema-free

yes

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

JSON types

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.

Secondary indexes

yes

All properties auto-indexed by default

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like query language

APIs and other access methods

gRPC
JSON over HTTP

RESTful HTTP API

DocumentDB API
Graph API (Gremlin)
MongoDB API
RESTful HTTP API
Table API

TinkerPop 3

Supported programming languages

.Net
C
C++
Clojure
Erlang
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Perl
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Rust
Scala
Tcl

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

.Net
C#
Java
JavaScript
JavaScript (Node.js)
MongoDB client drivers written for various programming languages
Python

Groovy
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

JavaScript

Triggers

yes, watching key changes

JavaScript

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

horizontal partitioning

Sharding

Implicit feature of the cloud service

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Using Raft consensus algorithm to ensure data replication with strong consistency among multiple replicas.

yes

Implicit feature of the cloud service

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

with Hadoop integration

Integration with Hadoop/HDInsight on Azure*

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Bounded Staleness
Consistent Prefix
Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

Consistency level configurable on request level
Session Consistency

none

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Relationships in graphs

Transaction concepts

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

Multi-item ACID transactions with snapshot isolation within a partition

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

optional: either by committing a write-ahead log (WAL) to the local persistent storage or by dumping the memory to a persistent storage

yes

optional

In-memory capabilities

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

yes

User concepts

Access control

Access rights can be defined down to the item level

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.