DBMS > JaguarDB vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. OpenQM vs. Snowflake vs. Splice Machine

System Properties Comparison JaguarDB vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. OpenQM vs. Snowflake vs. Splice Machine

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

Performant, highly scalable DBMS for AI and IoT applications

A Wide Column Store for rapid development using massive semi-structured datasets

QpenQM is a high-performance, self-tuning, multi-value DBMS

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

Open-Source SQL RDBMS for Operational and Analytical use cases with native Machine Learning, powered by Hadoop and Spark

Primary database model

Key-value store
Vector DBMS

Wide column store

Multivalue DBMS

Relational DBMS

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

Score	0.06
Rank	#381	Overall
	#59	Key-value stores
	#14	Vector DBMS

Score	4.04
Rank	#77	Overall
	#6	Wide column stores

Score	0.34
Rank	#284	Overall
	#10	Multivalue DBMS

Score	130.36
Rank	#8	Overall
	#5	Relational DBMS

Score	0.54
Rank	#252	Overall
	#115	Relational DBMS

Website

www.jaguardb.com

azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/storage/tables

www.rocketsoftware.com/products/rocket-multivalue-application-development-platform/rocket-open-qm

www.snowflake.com

splicemachine.com

Technical documentation

www.jaguardb.com/support.html

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

splicemachine.com/how-it-works

Developer

DataJaguar, Inc.

Microsoft

Rocket Software, originally Martin Phillips

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Splice Machine

Initial release

2015

2012

1993

2014

Current release

3.3 July 2023

3.4-12

3.1, March 2021

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

GPL V3.0

commercial

Open Source

GPLv2, extended commercial license available

commercial

Open Source

AGPL 3.0, commercial license 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

Java

Server operating systems

Linux

hosted

AIX
FreeBSD
Linux
macOS
Raspberry Pi
Solaris
Windows

hosted

Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

yes

with some exceptions

yes

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

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

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

A subset of ANSI SQL is implemented

but no views, foreign keys, triggers

yes

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

RESTful HTTP API

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

JDBC
Native Spark Datasource
ODBC

Supported programming languages

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

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

.Net
Basic
C
Java
Objective C
PHP
Python

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

C#
C++
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Python
R
Scala

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

user defined functions

yes

Java

Triggers

yes

similar concept for controling cloud resources

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

Implicit feature of the cloud service

yes

Shared Nothhing Auto-Sharding, Columnar Partitioning

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Multi-source replication

yes

implicit feature of the cloud service. Replication either local, cross-facility or geo-redundant.

yes

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Yes, via Full Spark Integration

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Eventual Consistency

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

optimistic locking

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

yes, multi-version concurrency control (MVCC)

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

rights management via user accounts

Access rights based on private key authentication or shared access signatures

Access rights can be defined down to the item level

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

Access rights for users, groups and roles 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.