DBMS > Machbase Neo vs. OrigoDB vs. RavenDB vs. Snowflake

System Properties Comparison Machbase Neo vs. OrigoDB vs. RavenDB vs. Snowflake

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

TimeSeries DBMS for AIoT and BigData

A fully ACID in-memory object graph database

Open Source Operational and Transactional Enterprise NoSQL Document Database

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

Primary database model

Time Series DBMS

Document store
Object oriented DBMS

Document store

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS
Time Series DBMS

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

Score	0.12
Rank	#339	Overall
	#30	Time Series DBMS

Score	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#53	Document stores
	#20	Object oriented DBMS

Score	2.92
Rank	#101	Overall
	#18	Document stores

Score	121.33
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Website

Technical documentation

machbase.com/dbms

origodb.com/docs

ravendb.net/docs

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

Machbase

Robert Friberg et al

Hibernating Rhinos

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Initial release

2013

2009

under the name LiveDB

2010

2014

Current release

V8.0, August 2023

5.4, July 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free test version available

Open Source

AGPL version 3, commercial license 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.

Implementation language

Server operating systems

Linux
macOS
Windows

Linux
Windows

Linux
macOS
Raspberry Pi
Windows

hosted

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

yes

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

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

User defined using .NET types and collections

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.

can be achieved using .NET

yes

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like query language

SQL-like query language (RQL)

yes

APIs and other access methods

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

.NET Client API
HTTP API
LINQ

.NET Client API
F# Client API
Go Client API
Java Client API
NodeJS Client API
PHP Client API
Python Client API
RESTful HTTP API

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

C
C#
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript
PHP

via ODBC
Python
R

via ODBC
Scala

.Net

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

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

Domain Events

yes

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

horizontal partitioning

client side managed; servers are not synchronized

Sharding

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

selectable replication factor

Source-replica replication

Multi-source replication

yes

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Default ACID transactions on the local node (eventually consistent across the cluster). Atomic operations with cluster-wide ACID transactions. Eventual consistency for indexes and full-text search indexes.

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

depending on model

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

ACID, Cluster-wide transaction available

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

Write ahead log

yes

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

Role based authorization

Authorization levels configured per client per database

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.