DBMS > Hypertable vs. Ingres vs. RavenDB vs. Snowflake

System Properties Comparison Hypertable vs. Ingres vs. RavenDB vs. Snowflake

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Hypertable has stopped its further development with March 2016 and is removed from the DB-Engines ranking.

Description

An open source BigTable implementation based on distributed file systems such as Hadoop

Well established RDBMS

Open Source Operational and Transactional Enterprise NoSQL Document Database

Cloud-based data warehousing service for structured and semi-structured data

Primary database model

Secondary database models

Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS
Time Series DBMS

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

Score	3.80
Rank	#82	Overall
	#44	Relational DBMS

Score	2.84
Rank	#101	Overall
	#18	Document stores

Score	130.36
Rank	#8	Overall
	#5	Relational DBMS

Website

www.actian.com/databases/ingres

ravendb.net

www.snowflake.com

Technical documentation

docs.actian.com/ingres

ravendb.net/docs

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

Hypertable Inc.

Actian Corporation

Hibernating Rhinos

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Initial release

2009

1974

originally developed at University Berkely in early 1970s

2010

2014

Current release

0.9.8.11, March 2016

11.2, May 2022

5.4, July 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

GNU version 3. Commercial license available

commercial

Open Source

AGPL version 3, commercial license available

commercial

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

C++

Server operating systems

Linux
OS X
Windows

an inofficial Windows port is available

AIX
HP Open VMS
HP-UX
Linux
Solaris
Windows

Linux
macOS
Raspberry Pi
Windows

hosted

Data scheme

schema-free

yes

schema-free

yes

support of semi-structured data formats (JSON, XML, Avro)

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.

but tools for importing/exporting data from/to XML-files available

yes

Secondary indexes

restricted

only exact value or prefix value scans

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

SQL-like query language (RQL)

yes

APIs and other access methods

C++ API
Thrift

.NET Client API
JDBC
ODBC
proprietary protocol (OpenAPI)

.NET Client API
F# Client API
Go Client API
Java Client API
NodeJS Client API
PHP Client API
Python Client API
RESTful HTTP API

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

C++
Java
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby

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

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

horizontal partitioning

Ingres Star to access multiple databases simultaneously

Sharding

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

selectable replication factor on file system level

Ingres Replicator

Multi-source replication

yes

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Default ACID transactions on the local node (eventually consistent across the cluster). Atomic operations with cluster-wide ACID transactions. Eventual consistency for indexes and full-text search indexes.

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

ACID, Cluster-wide transaction available

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

MVCC

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.

User concepts

Access control

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

Authorization levels configured per client per database

Users with fine-grained authorization concept, user roles and pluggable authentication

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.