DBMS > Snowflake vs. SpaceTime vs. Sqrrl vs. Vitess

System Properties Comparison Snowflake vs. SpaceTime vs. Sqrrl vs. Vitess

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Sqrrl has been acquired by Amazon and became a part of Amazon Web Services. It has been removed from the DB-Engines ranking.

Description

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

SpaceTime is a spatio-temporal DBMS with a focus on performance.

Adaptable, secure NoSQL built on Apache Accumulo

Scalable, distributed, cloud-native DBMS, extending MySQL

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Spatial DBMS

Document store
Graph DBMS
Key-value store
Wide column store

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Relational DBMS

Document store
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	121.33
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Score	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#7	Spatial DBMS

Score	0.82
Rank	#209	Overall
	#97	Relational DBMS

Website

www.snowflake.com

www.mireo.com/spacetime

sqrrl.com

vitess.io

Technical documentation

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

vitess.io/docs

Developer

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Mireo

Amazon

originally Sqrrl Data, Inc.

The Linux Foundation, PlanetScale

Initial release

2014

2020

2012

2013

Current release

15.0.2, December 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0, commercial licenses available

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++

Java

Server operating systems

hosted

Linux

Docker
Linux
macOS

Data scheme

yes

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

yes

schema-free

yes

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

A subset of ANSI SQL is implemented

yes

with proprietary extensions

APIs and other access methods

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

RESTful HTTP API

Accumulo Shell
Java API
JDBC
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API
Thrift

ADO.NET
JDBC
MySQL protocol
ODBC

Supported programming languages

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

C#
C++
Python

Actionscript
C

using GLib
C#
C++
Cocoa
Delphi
Erlang
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript
OCaml
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby
Smalltalk

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

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

yes

proprietary syntax

Triggers

similar concept for controling cloud resources

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

yes

Fixed-grid hypercubes

Sharding

making use of Hadoop

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Real-time block device replication (DRBD)

selectable replication factor

making use of Hadoop

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Document store kept consistent with combination of global timestamping, row-level transactions, and server-side consistency resolution.

Eventual Consistency across shards
Immediate Consistency within a shard

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

not for MyISAM storage engine

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Atomic updates per row, document, or graph entity

ACID at shard level

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

table locks or row locks depending on storage engine

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

User concepts

Access control

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

yes

Cell-level Security, Data-Centric Security, Role-Based Access Control (RBAC), Attribute-Based Access Control (ABAC)

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

no user groups or 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.