DBMS > OrigoDB vs. Riak KV vs. Snowflake vs. Warp 10

System Properties Comparison OrigoDB vs. Riak KV vs. Snowflake vs. Warp 10

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

A fully ACID in-memory object graph database

Distributed, fault tolerant key-value store

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

TimeSeries DBMS specialized on timestamped geo data based on LevelDB or HBase

Primary database model

Document store
Object oriented DBMS

Key-value store

with links between data sets and object tags for the creation of secondary indexes

Relational DBMS

Time Series DBMS

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

Score	0.06
Rank	#380	Overall
	#50	Document stores
	#18	Object oriented DBMS

Score	4.01
Rank	#79	Overall
	#9	Key-value stores

Score	130.36
Rank	#8	Overall
	#5	Relational DBMS

Score	0.14
Rank	#344	Overall
	#32	Time Series DBMS

Website

origodb.com

www.snowflake.com

www.warp10.io

Technical documentation

origodb.com/docs

www.tiot.jp/riak-docs/riak/kv/latest

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

www.warp10.io/content/02_Getting_started

Developer

Robert Friberg et al

OpenSource, formerly Basho Technologies

Snowflake Computing Inc.

SenX

Initial release

2009

under the name LiveDB

2009

2014

2015

Current release

3.2.0, December 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache version 2, commercial enterprise edition

commercial

Open Source

Apache License 2.0

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

Erlang

Java

Server operating systems

Linux
Windows

Linux
OS X

hosted

Linux
OS X
Windows

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

yes

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

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

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

restricted

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

APIs and other access methods

.NET Client API
HTTP API
LINQ

HTTP API
Native Erlang Interface

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

HTTP API
Jupyter
WebSocket

Supported programming languages

.Net

unofficial client library
C#
C++

unofficial client library
Clojure

unofficial client library
Dart

unofficial client library
Erlang
Go

unofficial client library
Groovy

unofficial client library
Haskell

unofficial client library
Java
JavaScript

unofficial client library
Lisp

unofficial client library
Perl

unofficial client library
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scala

unofficial client library
Smalltalk

unofficial client library

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Erlang

user defined functions

yes

WarpScript

Triggers

yes

Domain Events

yes

pre-commit hooks and post-commit hooks

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

horizontal partitioning

client side managed; servers are not synchronized

Sharding

no "single point of failure"

yes

Sharding

based on HBase

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Source-replica replication

selectable replication factor

yes

selectable replication factor

based on HBase

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Eventual Consistency

Immediate Consistency

based on HBase

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

depending on model

links between data sets can be stored

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

Write ahead log

yes

In-memory capabilities

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

yes

User concepts

Access control

Role based authorization

yes, using Riak Security

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

Mandatory use of cryptographic tokens, containing fine-grained authorizations

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.