DBMS > Graph Engine vs. Microsoft SQL Server vs. RisingWave vs. Tibero

System Properties Comparison Graph Engine vs. Microsoft SQL Server vs. RisingWave vs. Tibero

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 distributed RDBMS for stream processing, wire-compatible with PostgreSQL

A secure RDBMS, designed for easy portability from Oracle

Primary database model

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
Graph DBMS
Spatial 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	824.29
Rank	#3	Overall
	#3	Relational DBMS

Score	0.58
Rank	#242	Overall
	#111	Relational DBMS

Score	1.78
Rank	#140	Overall
	#64	Relational DBMS

Website

www.graphengine.io

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

www.risingwave.com/database

us.tmaxsoft.com/products/tibero

Technical documentation

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

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

docs.risingwave.com/docs/current/intro

technet.tmaxsoft.com/upload/download/online/tibero/pver-20150504-000002/index.html

Developer

Microsoft

RisingWave Labs

TmaxSoft

Initial release

2010

1989

2022

2003

Current release

SQL Server 2022, November 2022

1.2, September 2023

6, April 2015

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

MIT License

commercial

restricted free version is available

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0

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.

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++

Rust

C and Assembler

Server operating systems

.NET

Linux
Windows

Docker
Linux
macOS

AIX
HP-UX
Linux
Solaris
Windows

Data scheme

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

Standard SQL-types and JSON

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

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

JDBC
PostgreSQL wire protocol

JDBC
ODBC
ODP.NET
Oracle Call Interface (OCI)
Tibero CLI

Supported programming languages

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

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

Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

C
C#
C++
Cobol
Java
Objective-C
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby
Visual Basic

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

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

UDFs in Python or Java

Persistent Stored Procedure (PSM)

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

horizontal partitioning

by range, hash, list or composite

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes, but depending on the SQL-Server Edition

Multi-source replication
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

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

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

In-memory capabilities

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

yes

planned for next version

User concepts

Access control

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

Users and Roles

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard (SQL 92, SQL 99)

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.