DBMS > etcd vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. OpenEdge vs. Realm vs. Snowflake

System Properties Comparison etcd vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. OpenEdge vs. Realm vs. Snowflake

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

A distributed reliable key-value store

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

Application development environment with integrated database management system

A DBMS built for use on mobile devices that’s a fast, easy to use alternative to SQLite and Core Data

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

Primary database model

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

Score	7.25
Rank	#54	Overall
	#5	Key-value stores

Score	4.48
Rank	#75	Overall
	#6	Wide column stores

Score	3.51
Rank	#86	Overall
	#46	Relational DBMS

Score	7.60
Rank	#52	Overall
	#9	Document stores

Score	121.33
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Website

etcd.io
github.com/etcd-io/etcd

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

www.progress.com/openedge

realm.io

www.snowflake.com

Technical documentation

etcd.io/docs
github.com/etcd-io/etcd/tree/master/Documentation

documentation.progress.com/output/ua/OpenEdge_latest

realm.io/docs

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

Microsoft

Progress Software Corporation

Realm, acquired by MongoDB in May 2019

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Initial release

2012

1984

2014

Current release

3.4, August 2019

OpenEdge 12.2, March 2020

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0

commercial

Open Source

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

FreeBSD
Linux
Windows

experimental

hosted

AIX
HP-UX
Linux
Solaris
Windows

Android
Backend: server-less
iOS
Windows

hosted

Data scheme

schema-free

yes

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

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

yes

close to SQL 92

yes

APIs and other access methods

gRPC
JSON over HTTP

RESTful HTTP API

JDBC
ODBC

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

.Net
C
C++
Clojure
Erlang
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Perl
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Rust
Scala
Tcl

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

Progress proprietary ABL (Advanced Business Language)

.Net
Java

with Android only
Objective-C
React Native
Swift

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

runs within the applications so server-side scripts are unnecessary

user defined functions

Triggers

yes, watching key changes

yes

Change Listeners

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

Implicit feature of the cloud service

horizontal partitioning

since Version 11.4

none

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Using Raft consensus algorithm to ensure data replication with strong consistency among multiple replicas.

yes

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

Source-replica replication

none

yes

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

Transaction concepts

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

optimistic locking

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

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

In-Memory realm

User concepts

Access control

Access rights based on private key authentication or shared access signatures

Users and groups

yes

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.