DBMS > Hazelcast vs. Interbase vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. Microsoft SQL Server vs. TerarkDB

System Properties Comparison Hazelcast vs. Interbase vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. Microsoft SQL Server vs. TerarkDB

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

A widely adopted in-memory data grid

Light-weight proven RDBMS

originally from Borland

A Wide Column Store for rapid development using massive semi-structured datasets

Microsofts flagship relational DBMS

A key-value store forked from RocksDB with advanced compression algorithms. It can be used standalone or as a storage engine for MySQL and MongoDB

Primary database model

Secondary database models

Document store

JSON support with IMDG 3.12

Document store
Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	6.87
Rank	#55	Overall
	#6	Key-value stores

Score	5.04
Rank	#71	Overall
	#39	Relational DBMS

Score	4.92
Rank	#73	Overall
	#6	Wide column stores

Score	829.80
Rank	#3	Overall
	#3	Relational DBMS

Score	0.04
Rank	#377	Overall
	#58	Key-value stores

Website

hazelcast.com

www.embarcadero.com/products/interbase

azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/storage/tables

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

github.com/bytedance/terarkdb

Technical documentation

hazelcast.org/imdg/docs

docs.embarcadero.com/products/interbase

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

bytedance.larkoffice.com/docs/doccnZmYFqHBm06BbvYgjsHHcKc

Developer

Hazelcast

Embarcadero

Microsoft

ByteDance, originally Terark

Initial release

2008

1984

2012

1989

2016

Current release

5.3.6, November 2023

InterBase 2020, December 2019

SQL Server 2022, November 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache Version 2; commercial licenses available

commercial

restricted free version is available

commercial

restricted open source version available

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

Java

C++

Server operating systems

All OS with a Java VM

Android
iOS
Linux
OS X
Windows

hosted

Linux
Windows

Data scheme

schema-free

yes

schema-free

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

the object must implement a serialization strategy

export as XML data possible

yes

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like query language

yes

APIs and other access methods

JCache
JPA
Memcached protocol
RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

RESTful HTTP API

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

C++ API
Java API

Supported programming languages

.Net
C#
C++
Clojure
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Python
Scala

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

.Net
C#
C++
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
Ruby

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

C++
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Event Listeners, Executor Services

yes

Interbase procedure and trigger language

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

Triggers

yes

Events

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

none

Sharding

Implicit feature of the cloud service

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

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Replicated Map

Interbase Change Views

yes

implicit feature of the cloud service. Replication either local, cross-facility or geo-redundant.

yes, but depending on the SQL-Server Edition

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency selectable by user

Raft Consensus Algorithm

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

one or two-phase-commit; repeatable reads; read commited

ACID

optimistic locking

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Multiversion concurreny control

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

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

Role-based access control

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

Access rights based on private key authentication or shared access signatures

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.