DBMS > Faircom DB vs. Hazelcast vs. Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB vs. SQLite

System Properties Comparison Faircom DB vs. Hazelcast vs. Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB vs. SQLite

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

Native high-speed multi-model DBMS for relational and key-value store data simultaneously accessible through SQL and NoSQL APIs.

A widely adopted in-memory data grid

Globally distributed, horizontally scalable, multi-model database service

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

Primary database model

Key-value store
Relational DBMS

Key-value store

Document store
Graph DBMS
Key-value store
Wide column store

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store

JSON support with IMDG 3.12

Spatial DBMS

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

Score	0.20
Rank	#318	Overall
	#48	Key-value stores
	#141	Relational DBMS

Score	5.97
Rank	#57	Overall
	#6	Key-value stores

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

Score	114.32
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Website

www.faircom.com/products/faircom-db

hazelcast.com

azure.microsoft.com/services/cosmos-db

www.sqlite.org

Technical documentation

docs.faircom.com/docs/en/UUID-7446ae34-a1a7-c843-c894-d5322e395184.html

hazelcast.org/imdg/docs

learn.microsoft.com/azure/cosmos-db

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

Developer

FairCom Corporation

Hazelcast

Microsoft

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Initial release

1979

2008

2014

2000

Current release

V12, November 2020

5.3.6, November 2023

3.45.3 (15 April 2024), April 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Restricted, free version available

Open Source

Apache Version 2; commercial licenses available

commercial

Open Source

Public Domain

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

ANSI C, C++

Java

Server operating systems

AIX
FreeBSD
HP-UX
Linux
NetBSD
OS X
QNX
SCO
Solaris
VxWorks
Windows

easily portable to other OSs

All OS with a Java VM

hosted

server-less

Data scheme

schema free, schema optional, schema required, partial schema,

schema-free

yes

dynamic column types

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes, ANSI SQL Types, JSON, typed binary structures

yes

JSON types

yes

not rigid because of 'dynamic typing' concept.

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

Secondary indexes

yes

All properties auto-indexed by default

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes, ANSI SQL with proprietary extensions

SQL-like query language

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

APIs and other access methods

ADO.NET
Direct SQL
JDBC
JPA
ODBC
RESTful HTTP/JSON API
RESTful MQTT/JSON API
RPC

JCache
JPA
Memcached protocol
RESTful HTTP API

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

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

Supported programming languages

.Net
C
C#
C++
Java
JavaScript (Node.js and browser)
PHP
Python
Visual Basic

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

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

Actionscript
Ada
Basic
C
C#
C++
D
Delphi
Forth
Fortran
Haskell
Java
JavaScript
Lisp
Lua
MatLab
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
PL/SQL
Python
R
Ruby
Scala
Scheme
Smalltalk
Tcl

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

.Net, JavaScript, C/C++

yes

Event Listeners, Executor Services

JavaScript

Triggers

yes

Events

JavaScript

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

File partitioning, horizontal partitioning, sharding

Customizable business rules for table partitioning

Sharding

Implicit feature of the cloud service

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes, configurable to be parallel or serial, synchronous or asynchronous, uni-directional or bi-directional, ACID-consistent or eventually consistent (with custom conflict resolution).

yes

Replicated Map

yes

Implicit feature of the cloud service

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

with Hadoop integration

Integration with Hadoop/HDInsight on Azure*

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency
Tunable consistency per server, database, table, and transaction

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency selectable by user

Raft Consensus Algorithm

Bounded Staleness
Consistent Prefix
Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

Consistency level configurable on request level
Session Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

tunable from ACID to Eventually Consistent

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

Multi-item ACID transactions with snapshot isolation within a partition

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

via file-system locks

Durability

Support for making data persistent

Yes, tunable from durable to delayed durability to in-memory

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

Fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard with additional protections for files

Role-based 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.