DBMS > Machbase Neo vs. Microsoft Azure SQL Database vs. MySQL vs. OrigoDB

System Properties Comparison Machbase Neo vs. Microsoft Azure SQL Database vs. MySQL vs. OrigoDB

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

TimeSeries DBMS for AIoT and BigData

Database as a Service offering with high compatibility to Microsoft SQL Server

Widely used open source RDBMS

A fully ACID in-memory object graph database

Primary database model

Time Series DBMS

Relational DBMS

Key/Value like access via memcached API

Document store
Object oriented DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS

Document store
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	0.07
Rank	#348	Overall
	#34	Time Series DBMS

Score	72.95
Rank	#16	Overall
	#11	Relational DBMS

Score	1029.49
Rank	#2	Overall
	#2	Relational DBMS

Score	0.00
Rank	#385	Overall
	#54	Document stores
	#21	Object oriented DBMS

Website

machbase.com

azure.microsoft.com/en-us/products/azure-sql/database

www.mysql.com

origodb.com

Technical documentation

machbase.com/dbms

docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-sql

dev.mysql.com/doc

origodb.com/docs

Developer

Machbase

Microsoft

Oracle

since 2010, originally MySQL AB, then Sun

Robert Friberg et al

Initial release

2013

2010

1995

2009

under the name LiveDB

Current release

V8.0, August 2023

V12

9.0.0, July 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free test version available

commercial

Open Source

GPL version 2. Commercial licenses with extended functionallity are available

Open Source

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++

C and C++

Server operating systems

Linux
macOS
Windows

hosted

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

Linux
Windows

Data scheme

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

User defined using .NET types and collections

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

can be achieved using .NET

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like query language

yes

with proprietary extensions

APIs and other access methods

gRPC
HTTP REST
JDBC
MQTT (Message Queue Telemetry Transport)
ODBC

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
Proprietary native API

.NET Client API
HTTP API
LINQ

Supported programming languages

C
C#
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript
PHP

via ODBC
Python
R

via ODBC
Scala

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

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

.Net

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Transact SQL

yes

proprietary syntax

yes

Triggers

yes

Domain Events

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

horizontal partitioning, sharding with MySQL Cluster or MySQL Fabric

horizontal partitioning

client side managed; servers are not synchronized

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

selectable replication factor

yes, with always 3 replicas available

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

not for MyISAM storage engine

depending on model

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

not for MyISAM storage engine

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

table locks or row locks depending on storage engine

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

Write ahead log

In-memory capabilities

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

yes

volatile and lookup table

yes

User concepts

Access control

simple password-based access control

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

no user groups or roles

Role based authorization

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.