DBMS > Graph Engine vs. TinkerGraph

System Properties Comparison Graph Engine vs. TinkerGraph

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Our visitors often compare Graph Engine and TinkerGraph with Neo4j, GraphDB and Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB.

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

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

Primary database model

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

Graph DBMS

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

Score	0.91
Rank	#240	Overall
	#19	Graph DBMS
	#36	Key-value stores

Score	0.37
Rank	#327	Overall
	#30	Graph DBMS

Website

www.graphengine.io

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

Technical documentation

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

Developer

Microsoft

Initial release

2010

2009

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

MIT License

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.

Implementation language

.NET and C

Java

Server operating systems

.NET

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.

Secondary indexes

SQL

Support of SQL

APIs and other access methods

RESTful HTTP API

TinkerPop 3

Supported programming languages

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

Groovy
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Triggers

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

horizontal partitioning

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

none

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Relationships in graphs

Transaction concepts

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

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

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

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

Kobai Rides Atop the Lakehouse with Semantic Graph Engine
23 March 2023, Datanami

Open source Microsoft Graph Engine takes on Neo4j
13 February 2017, InfoWorld

Forrester Shares the 411 on Data Fabric 2.0
28 February 2023, Datanami

AWS, IBM, Microsoft, Google emerge Cloud DBMS leaders
22 December 2022, Daily Host News

Trend-Setting Products in Data and Information Management for 2023
8 December 2022, Database Trends and Applications

provided by Google News

Gremlin, a Language for Working with Graphs
15 January 2010, InfoQ.com

Graph Databases, NOSQL and Neo4j
12 May 2010, InfoQ.com

provided by Google News

Share this page