DBMS > Graph Engine vs. Microsoft SQL Server vs. MonetDB vs. TinkerGraph

System Properties Comparison Graph Engine vs. Microsoft SQL Server vs. MonetDB 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

Microsofts flagship relational DBMS

A relational database management system that stores data in columns

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

Primary database model

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Graph DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS

Document store
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	0.56
Rank	#241	Overall
	#21	Graph DBMS
	#34	Key-value stores

Score	807.76
Rank	#3	Overall
	#3	Relational DBMS

Score	1.72
Rank	#135	Overall
	#62	Relational DBMS

Score	0.08
Rank	#345	Overall
	#34	Graph DBMS

Website

www.graphengine.io

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

www.monetdb.org

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

Technical documentation

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

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

www.monetdb.org/Documentation

Developer

Microsoft

MonetDB BV

Initial release

2010

1989

2004

2009

Current release

SQL Server 2022, November 2022

Dec2023 (11.49), December 2023

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

MIT License

commercial

restricted free version is available

Open Source

Mozilla Public License 2.0

Open Source

Apache 2.0

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.

SQLServer Flex @ STACKIT offers a managed version of SQL Server with adjustable CPU, RAM, storage amount and speed, in enterprise grade to perfectly match all application requirements. All services are 100% GDPR-compliant.

Implementation language

.NET and C

C++

Java

Server operating systems

.NET

Linux
Windows

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

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.

yes

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

SQL 2003 with some extensions

APIs and other access methods

RESTful HTTP API

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

JDBC
native C library

MAPI library (MonetDB application programming interface)
ODBC

TinkerPop 3

Supported programming languages

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

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

C
C++
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Perl
PHP
Python
R
Ruby

Groovy
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

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

yes, in SQL, C, R

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

horizontal partitioning

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

Sharding via remote tables

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes, but depending on the SQL-Server Edition

none

Source-replica replication available in experimental status

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

none

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Relationships in graphs

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

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

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.