DBMS > JaguarDB vs. Oracle NoSQL vs. Snowflake vs. TinkerGraph

System Properties Comparison JaguarDB vs. Oracle NoSQL vs. Snowflake vs. TinkerGraph

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

Performant, highly scalable DBMS for AI and IoT applications

A multi-model, scalable, distributed NoSQL database, designed to provide highly reliable, flexible, and available data management across a configurable set of storage nodes

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

A lightweight, in-memory graph engine that serves as a reference implementation of the TinkerPop3 API

Primary database model

Key-value store
Vector DBMS

Document store
Key-value store
Relational DBMS

Relational DBMS

Graph DBMS

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

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

Score	2.95
Rank	#100	Overall
	#17	Document stores
	#17	Key-value stores
	#50	Relational DBMS

Score	121.33
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Score	0.08
Rank	#348	Overall
	#35	Graph DBMS

Website

www.jaguardb.com

www.oracle.com/database/nosql/technologies/nosql

www.snowflake.com

tinkerpop.apache.org/docs/current/reference/#tinkergraph-gremlin

Technical documentation

www.jaguardb.com/support.html

docs.oracle.com/en/database/other-databases/nosql-database/index.html

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

DataJaguar, Inc.

Oracle

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Initial release

2015

2011

2014

2009

Current release

3.3 July 2023

23.3, December 2023

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

GPL V3.0

Open Source

Proprietary for Enterprise Edition (Oracle Database EE license has Oracle NoSQL database EE covered: details)

commercial

Open Source

Apache 2.0

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

Linux
Solaris SPARC/x86

hosted

Data scheme

yes

Support Fixed schema and Schema-less deployment with the ability to interoperate between them.

yes

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

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

optional

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

SQL-like DML and DDL statements

yes

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

RESTful HTTP API

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

TinkerPop 3

Supported programming languages

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

C
C#
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Groovy
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

Triggers

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

yes

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Multi-source replication

Electable source-replica replication per shard. Support distributed global deployment with Multi-region table feature

yes

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

with Hadoop integration

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Eventual Consistency

Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

depending on configuration

Immediate Consistency

none

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Relationships in graphs

Transaction concepts

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

configurable

ACID within a storage node (=shard)

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

optional

In-memory capabilities

Is there an option to define some or all structures to be held in-memory only.

yes

off heap cache

yes

User concepts

Access control

rights management via user accounts

Access rights for users and roles

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.