DBMS > etcd vs. Microsoft SQL Server vs. Oracle NoSQL vs. SQLite

System Properties Comparison etcd vs. Microsoft SQL Server vs. Oracle NoSQL vs. SQLite

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

Microsofts flagship relational DBMS

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

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

Primary database model

Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Document store
Key-value store
Relational DBMS

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	7.64
Rank	#54	Overall
	#5	Key-value stores

Score	829.80
Rank	#3	Overall
	#3	Relational DBMS

Score	2.96
Rank	#103	Overall
	#18	Document stores
	#17	Key-value stores
	#52	Relational DBMS

Score	116.01
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Website

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

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

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

www.sqlite.org

Technical documentation

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

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

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

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

Developer

Microsoft

Oracle

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Initial release

1989

2011

2000

Current release

3.4, August 2019

SQL Server 2022, November 2022

23.3, December 2023

3.45.3 (15 April 2024), April 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0

commercial

restricted free version is available

Open Source

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

Open Source

Public Domain

Cloud-based only

Only available as a cloud service

DBaaS offerings (sponsored links)

Database as a Service

Providers of DBaaS offerings, please contact us to be listed.

Implementation language

C++

Java

Server operating systems

FreeBSD
Linux
Windows

experimental

Linux
Windows

Linux
Solaris SPARC/x86

server-less

Data scheme

schema-free

yes

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

yes

dynamic column types

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

optional

yes

not rigid because of 'dynamic typing' concept.

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

SQL-like DML and DDL statements

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

APIs and other access methods

gRPC
JSON over HTTP

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

RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

Supported programming languages

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

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

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

Actionscript
Ada
Basic
C
C#
C++
D
Delphi
Forth
Fortran
Haskell
Java
JavaScript
Lisp
Lua
MatLab
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
PL/SQL
Python
R
Ruby
Scala
Scheme
Smalltalk
Tcl

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

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

Triggers

yes, watching key changes

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

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

Sharding

none

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, but depending on the SQL-Server Edition

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

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

with Hadoop integration

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

depending on configuration

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

configurable

ACID within a storage node (=shard)

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

via file-system locks

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

off heap cache

yes

User concepts

Access control

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

Access rights for users and roles

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.