DBMS > etcd vs. Hazelcast vs. Microsoft SQL Server vs. Riak KV

System Properties Comparison etcd vs. Hazelcast vs. Microsoft SQL Server vs. Riak KV

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

A distributed reliable key-value store

A widely adopted in-memory data grid

Microsofts flagship relational DBMS

Distributed, fault tolerant key-value store

Primary database model

Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Key-value store

with links between data sets and object tags for the creation of secondary indexes

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	7.05
Rank	#53	Overall
	#5	Key-value stores

Score	5.72
Rank	#59	Overall
	#6	Key-value stores

Score	807.76
Rank	#3	Overall
	#3	Relational DBMS

Score	3.84
Rank	#76	Overall
	#9	Key-value stores

Website

etcd.io
github.com/etcd-io/etcd

hazelcast.com

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

Technical documentation

etcd.io/docs
github.com/etcd-io/etcd/tree/master/Documentation

hazelcast.org/imdg/docs

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

www.tiot.jp/riak-docs/riak/kv/latest

Developer

Hazelcast

Microsoft

OpenSource, formerly Basho Technologies

Initial release

2008

1989

2009

Current release

3.4, August 2019

5.3.6, November 2023

SQL Server 2022, November 2022

3.2.0, December 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0

Open Source

Apache Version 2; commercial licenses available

commercial

restricted free version is available

Open Source

Apache version 2, commercial enterprise edition

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

Java

C++

Erlang

Server operating systems

FreeBSD
Linux
Windows

experimental

All OS with a Java VM

Linux
Windows

Linux
OS X

Data scheme

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

yes

Secondary indexes

yes

restricted

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like query language

yes

APIs and other access methods

gRPC
JSON over HTTP

JCache
JPA
Memcached protocol
RESTful HTTP API

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

HTTP API
Native Erlang Interface

Supported programming languages

.Net
C
C++
Clojure
Erlang
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Perl
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Rust
Scala
Tcl

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

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

unofficial client library
C#
C++

unofficial client library
Clojure

unofficial client library
Dart

unofficial client library
Erlang
Go

unofficial client library
Groovy

unofficial client library
Haskell

unofficial client library
Java
JavaScript

unofficial client library
Lisp

unofficial client library
Perl

unofficial client library
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scala

unofficial client library
Smalltalk

unofficial client library

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Event Listeners, Executor Services

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

Erlang

Triggers

yes, watching key changes

yes

Events

yes

pre-commit hooks and post-commit hooks

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

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

Sharding

no "single point of failure"

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Using Raft consensus algorithm to ensure data replication with strong consistency among multiple replicas.

yes

Replicated Map

yes, but depending on the SQL-Server Edition

selectable replication factor

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency selectable by user

Raft Consensus Algorithm

Immediate Consistency

Eventual Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

links between data sets can be stored

Transaction concepts

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

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

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

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

yes, using Riak Security

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.