DBMS > Interbase vs. JaguarDB vs. Realm vs. Snowflake vs. TerarkDB

System Properties Comparison Interbase vs. JaguarDB vs. Realm vs. Snowflake vs. TerarkDB

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

Light-weight proven RDBMS

originally from Borland

Performant, highly scalable DBMS for AI and IoT applications

A DBMS built for use on mobile devices that’s a fast, easy to use alternative to SQLite and Core Data

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

A key-value store forked from RocksDB with advanced compression algorithms. It can be used standalone or as a storage engine for MySQL and MongoDB

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Key-value store
Vector DBMS

Document store

Relational DBMS

Key-value store

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

Score	4.61
Rank	#72	Overall
	#39	Relational DBMS

Score	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#60	Key-value stores
	#13	Vector DBMS

Score	7.60
Rank	#52	Overall
	#9	Document stores

Score	121.33
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Score	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#60	Key-value stores

Website

www.embarcadero.com/products/interbase

www.jaguardb.com

realm.io

www.snowflake.com

github.com/bytedance/terarkdb

Technical documentation

docs.embarcadero.com/products/interbase

www.jaguardb.com/support.html

realm.io/docs

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

bytedance.larkoffice.com/docs/doccnZmYFqHBm06BbvYgjsHHcKc

Developer

Embarcadero

DataJaguar, Inc.

Realm, acquired by MongoDB in May 2019

Snowflake Computing Inc.

ByteDance, originally Terark

Initial release

1984

2015

2014

2016

Current release

InterBase 2020, December 2019

3.3 July 2023

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

GPL V3.0

Open Source

commercial

restricted open source version available

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++

the server part. Clients available in other languages

C++

Server operating systems

Android
iOS
Linux
OS X
Windows

Linux

Android
Backend: server-less
iOS
Windows

hosted

Data scheme

yes

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

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.

export as XML data possible

yes

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

A subset of ANSI SQL is implemented

but no views, foreign keys, triggers

yes

APIs and other access methods

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

JDBC
ODBC

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

C++ API
Java API

Supported programming languages

.Net
C
C++
Delphi
Java
Object Pascal
PHP
Ruby

C
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scala

.Net
Java

with Android only
Objective-C
React Native
Swift

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

C++
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Interbase procedure and trigger language

runs within the applications so server-side scripts are unnecessary

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

Change Listeners

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

Sharding

none

yes

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Interbase Change Views

Multi-source replication

none

yes

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Eventual Consistency

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Multiversion concurreny control

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

In-Memory realm

yes

User concepts

Access control

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

rights management via user accounts

yes

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.