DBMS > Hypertable vs. Microsoft SQL Server vs. RavenDB vs. SwayDB

System Properties Comparison Hypertable vs. Microsoft SQL Server vs. RavenDB vs. SwayDB

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

Microsofts flagship relational DBMS

Open Source Operational and Transactional Enterprise NoSQL Document Database

An embeddable, non-blocking, type-safe key-value store for single or multiple disks and in-memory storage

Primary database model

Secondary database models

Document store
Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS

Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS
Time Series DBMS

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

Score	824.29
Rank	#3	Overall
	#3	Relational DBMS

Score	2.92
Rank	#101	Overall
	#18	Document stores

Score	0.00
Rank	#382	Overall
	#59	Key-value stores

Website

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

ravendb.net

swaydb.simer.au

Technical documentation

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

ravendb.net/docs

Developer

Hypertable Inc.

Microsoft

Hibernating Rhinos

Simer Plaha

Initial release

2009

1989

2010

2018

Current release

0.9.8.11, March 2016

SQL Server 2022, November 2022

5.4, July 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

GNU version 3. Commercial license available

commercial

restricted free version is available

Open Source

AGPL version 3, commercial license available

Open Source

GNU Affero GPL V3.0

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.

Implementation language

C++

Scala

Server operating systems

Linux
OS X
Windows

an inofficial Windows port is available

Linux
Windows

Linux
macOS
Raspberry Pi
Windows

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

Secondary indexes

restricted

only exact value or prefix value scans

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

SQL-like query language (RQL)

APIs and other access methods

C++ API
Thrift

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

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

Supported programming languages

C++
Java
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby

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

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

Java
Kotlin
Scala

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

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

yes

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

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

Sharding

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

selectable replication factor on file system level

yes, but depending on the SQL-Server Edition

Multi-source replication

none

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

Atomic execution of operations

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

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

Authorization levels configured per client per database

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.