DBMS > etcd vs. Hazelcast vs. MySQL vs. SAP SQL Anywhere

System Properties Comparison etcd vs. Hazelcast vs. MySQL vs. SAP SQL Anywhere

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

Widely used open source RDBMS

RDBMS database and synchronization technologies for server, desktop, remote office, and mobile environments

Primary database model

Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Key/Value like access via memcached API

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store

JSON support with IMDG 3.12

Document store
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	7.25
Rank	#54	Overall
	#5	Key-value stores

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

Score	1083.74
Rank	#2	Overall
	#2	Relational DBMS

Score	4.25
Rank	#79	Overall
	#43	Relational DBMS

Website

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

hazelcast.com

www.mysql.com

www.sap.com/products/technology-platform/sql-anywhere.html

Technical documentation

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

hazelcast.org/imdg/docs

dev.mysql.com/doc

help.sap.com/docs/SAP_SQL_Anywhere

Developer

Hazelcast

Oracle

since 2010, originally MySQL AB, then Sun

SAP

formerly Sybase

Initial release

2008

1995

1992

Current release

3.4, August 2019

5.3.6, November 2023

8.3.0, January 2024

17, July 2015

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0

Open Source

Apache Version 2; commercial licenses available

Open Source

GPL version 2. Commercial licenses with extended functionallity are available

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.

Aiven for MySQL: Fully managed MySQL, deployable in the cloud of your choice, with seamless integrations and lightning-fast setup.

Implementation language

Java

C and C++

Server operating systems

FreeBSD
Linux
Windows

experimental

All OS with a Java VM

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

AIX
HP-UX
Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

Data scheme

schema-free

yes

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

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like query language

yes

with proprietary extensions

yes

APIs and other access methods

gRPC
JSON over HTTP

JCache
JPA
Memcached protocol
RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
Proprietary native API

ADO.NET
HTTP API
JDBC
ODBC

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

Ada
C
C#
C++
D
Delphi
Eiffel
Erlang
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scheme
Tcl

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

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Event Listeners, Executor Services

yes

proprietary syntax

yes, in C/C++, Java, .Net or Perl

Triggers

yes, watching key changes

yes

Events

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

horizontal partitioning, sharding with MySQL Cluster or MySQL Fabric

none

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

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

Source-replica replication

Database mirroring

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

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

not for MyISAM storage engine

yes

Transaction concepts

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

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

ACID

not for MyISAM storage engine

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

table locks or row locks depending on storage engine

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

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

no user groups or roles

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.