DBMS > JanusGraph vs. Kinetica vs. Microsoft SQL Server vs. Snowflake vs. Yaacomo

System Properties Comparison JanusGraph vs. Kinetica vs. Microsoft SQL Server vs. Snowflake vs. Yaacomo

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Yaacomo seems to be discontinued and is removed from the DB-Engines ranking

Description

A Graph DBMS optimized for distributed clusters

It was forked from the latest code base of Titan in January 2017

Fully vectorized database across both GPUs and CPUs

Microsofts flagship relational DBMS

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

OpenCL based in-memory RDBMS, designed for efficiently utilizing the hardware via parallel computing

Primary database model

Graph DBMS

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Spatial DBMS
Time Series DBMS

Document store
Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	2.02
Rank	#125	Overall
	#12	Graph DBMS

Score	0.66
Rank	#234	Overall
	#107	Relational DBMS

Score	821.56
Rank	#3	Overall
	#3	Relational DBMS

Score	130.36
Rank	#8	Overall
	#5	Relational DBMS

Website

janusgraph.org

www.kinetica.com

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

www.snowflake.com

yaacomo.com

Technical documentation

docs.janusgraph.org

docs.kinetica.com

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

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

Linux Foundation; originally developed as Titan by Aurelius

Kinetica

Microsoft

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Q2WEB GmbH

Initial release

2017

2012

1989

2014

2009

Current release

0.6.3, February 2023

7.1, August 2021

SQL Server 2022, November 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache 2.0

commercial

restricted free version is available

commercial

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.

SQLServer Flex @ STACKIT offers a managed version of SQL Server with adjustable CPU, RAM, storage amount and speed, in enterprise grade to perfectly match all application requirements. All services are 100% GDPR-compliant.

Implementation language

Java

C, C++

C++

Server operating systems

Linux
OS X
Unix
Windows

Linux

Linux
Windows

hosted

Android
Linux
Windows

Data scheme

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

SQL-like DML and DDL statements

yes

APIs and other access methods

Java API
TinkerPop Blueprints
TinkerPop Frames
TinkerPop Gremlin
TinkerPop Rexster

JDBC
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

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

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

Clojure
Java
Python

C++
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

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

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

user defined functions

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

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

triggers when inserted values for one or more columns fall within a specified range

yes

similar concept for controling cloud resources

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

yes

depending on the used storage backend (e.g. Cassandra, HBase, BerkeleyDB)

Sharding

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

yes

horizontal partitioning

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Source-replica replication

yes, but depending on the SQL-Server Edition

yes

Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

via Faunus, a graph analytics engine

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Relationships in graphs

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

Supports various storage backends: Cassandra, HBase, Berkeley DB, Akiban, Hazelcast

yes

In-memory capabilities

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

yes

GPU vRAM or System RAM

yes

User concepts

Access control

User authentification and security via Rexster Graph Server

Access rights for users and roles on table level

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

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

fine grained access rights 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.