DBMS > Hypertable vs. SAP HANA vs. Snowflake vs. TempoIQ vs. Vitess

System Properties Comparison Hypertable vs. SAP HANA vs. Snowflake vs. TempoIQ vs. Vitess

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

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

TempoIQ seems to be decommissioned. It will be removed from the DB-Engines ranking.

Description

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

In-memory, column based data store. Available as appliance or cloud service

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

Scalable analytics DBMS for sensor data, provided as a service (SaaS)

Scalable, distributed, cloud-native DBMS, extending MySQL

Primary database model

Secondary database models

Document store
Graph DBMS

with SAP Hana, Enterprise Edition
Spatial DBMS

Document store
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	44.69
Rank	#22	Overall
	#16	Relational DBMS

Score	121.33
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Score	0.82
Rank	#209	Overall
	#97	Relational DBMS

Website

www.sap.com/products/hana.html

www.snowflake.com

tempoiq.com (offline)

vitess.io

Technical documentation

help.sap.com/hana

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

vitess.io/docs

Developer

Hypertable Inc.

SAP

Snowflake Computing Inc.

TempoIQ

The Linux Foundation, PlanetScale

Initial release

2009

2010

2014

2012

2013

Current release

0.9.8.11, March 2016

2.0 SPS07 (April 4, 2023), April 2023

15.0.2, December 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

GNU version 3. Commercial license available

commercial

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0, commercial licenses available

Cloud-based only

Only available as a cloud service

also available as a cloud based 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

Appliance or cloud-service

hosted

Docker
Linux
macOS

Data scheme

schema-free

yes

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

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

Secondary indexes

restricted

only exact value or prefix value scans

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

with proprietary extensions

APIs and other access methods

C++ API
Thrift

JDBC
ODBC

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

HTTP API

ADO.NET
JDBC
MySQL protocol
ODBC

Supported programming languages

C++
Java
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

C#
Java
JavaScript

Node.js
Python
Ruby

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

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

SQLScript, R

user defined functions

yes

proprietary syntax

Triggers

yes

similar concept for controling cloud resources

yes

Realtime Alerts

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

yes

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

selectable replication factor on file system level

yes

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Eventual Consistency across shards
Immediate Consistency within a shard

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

not for MyISAM storage engine

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

ACID at shard level

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

table locks or row locks depending on storage engine

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

yes

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

simple authentication-based access control

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

no user groups or roles

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.