Inmemory Databases comparison

1. Metric Weightage Sub-Metrics Criteria
Sub-
Weightage
Storage Type
1.0 - SAN/NFS/Local/SSD
0.5 - SAN/Local
0.2 - SAN only
0.0 - No SAN/NFS/Local 0.1
Server type
1.0 - Any commodity Server
0.0 - Vendor appliances 4
Use Cases
1. OLTP and DSS
0.5 - OLTP or DSS
0.0 - Non OLTP nor DSS 0.1
Customer references
1 - Excellent
0.5 Good
0.2 - Average
0.0 - needs improvement 0.1
Key Characteristics To be defined 0.1
Partition type - horizontal, column store,
1 - both
0.5 - only one
0.0 - None 0.1
Manual and Documentation
1 - Excellent
0.5 Good
0.2 - Average
0.0 - needs improvement 0.1
Longevity
1.0 - 5 yr or longer
0.5 - 2 year or longer
0.2 - 1 year +
0.0 - <1 year 0.1
Training
1 - Excellent
0.5 Good
0.2 - Average
0.0 - needs improvement 0.1
Inmemory Databases comparative analysis:Ju

2. Support
1 - Excellent
0.5 Good
0.2 - Average
0.0 - needs improvement 0.2
5
Programming Language
1.0 - PLSQL/JAVA/C
0.5 - two of above
0.2 - one of above
0.0 - None 4
Query language
1.0 - ISO/IEC 9075-1:2011 or later
0.5 - earlier than ISO/IEC 9075-1:2011
0.0 - no mention to ISO/IEC 9075-1:2011 0.5
Search queries supported To be defined 0.1
Search integration To be defined 0.1
Query types supported (DDL AND DML)
1.0 - both
0.5 - one type
0.0 - None 0.1
Complex queries types supported
1.0 - fully support
0.5 - partially support
0.0 - not support 0.1
Insert, updates, deletes, appends supported
1.0 - support all 4
0.5 - support all but appends
0.0 - Not support one of insert, update,
delete 0.1
5
Hadoop
HDFS
1.0 support
0.0 - not support 0.1
MapReduce
1.0 support
0.0 - not support 0.1
Protocols supported like Rest API, Thrift, memcache
1.0 support
0.0 - not support 0.1
General Key Facts 5
Language and query 5

3. Integration with RDBMSs specifically Oracle
1.0 - fully support
0.5 - partially support
0.0 - not support 5
Any code rewrite for Oracle
1.0 - not need
0.8 - hardly needed
0.5 - needed considerblly
0.2 - Significantely needed
0.0 - Extensively needed 5
Interface ease with Oracle
1.0 - Very easy
0.5 - fairly easy
0.2 - not easy
0.0 - not possible 4.4
Integration with visualization /charting tools: Tableau,
1.0 - Can be integrated
0.0 - Cannot be integrated 0.1
Integration with graph databases
1.0 - Can be integrated
0.0 - Cannot be integrated 0.1
Search integration - Solr, ElasticSearch
1.0 - Can be integrated
0.0 - Cannot be integrated 0.1
15
Benchmarks
Insert speed
1.0 - very fast
0.5 - fast
0.2 - somewhat fast
0.0 - negligibly fast 6
Delete Speed
1.0 - very fast
0.5 - fast
0.2 - somewhat fast
0.0 - negligibly fast 6
Update Speed
1.0 - very fast
0.5 - fast
0.2 - somewhat fast
0.0 - negligibly fast 6
Integration 15

4. Query Speed (incl. full table scan)
1.0 - very fast
0.5 - fast
0.2 - somewhat fast
0.0 - negligibly fast 7
Benchmark tool / App test
1.0 - very fast
0.5 - fast
0.2 - somewhat fast
0.0 - negligibly fast 7
Possible performance issues
1.0 - No major issues expected
0.5 - Some issue expected
0.2 - major issue expected 5
Realtime download supported
1.0 - possible
0.5 posible with special treatment
0.0 - not possible 2
Real time /latency To be defined 0
Indexing
1.0 - fast
0.0 - not fast 2
Full text search 0
Rebalancing additional servers /nodes
1.0 - can be done online without impacting
active DB
0.5 - can be done online with impacting
active DB
0.0 - cannot be done 2
Sharding /horizontal scaling /auto sharding 0
Latency before sharding or backup 0
Throughput
1.0 - Can process large amount of data in a
fix time period
0.5 - Can process fair amount of data in a
fix time period
0.25 - Can processsmall amount of data in
a fix time period 2
Compression supported
1.0 - support compression
0.0 - Does not support compression 2
47
Performance 47

5. Backup/ Data Recovery
1.0 - Extensive backup/recovery function
built in
0.5 - backup/restore function built in
0.2 - Reply on 3rd party tool
0.0 - No backup/recovery function 2
Maximum capacity supported /spillover to harddisk
1.0 - Support large database up to physical
memory in a machine
0.5 - Support >200G but< 1TB DB
0.2 - Support >100G but <200G DB
0.0 - support <100G DB 2
Scalability
1.0 - capacity can be aded dynamiclly by
adding memory or cluster nodes
0.5 - capacity can be added with extensive
work
0.0 - can’t add capacity 2
Availability
1.0 - 5x9s
0.5 - 3x9s
0.2 - 2x9s 2
Fault tolerance
1.0 - hardware redundency leveraged
0.5 - some hardware redundency can be
leveraged
0.0 - no hardware redundency helps 1
SQL Focus 0
Data Replication /Snapshots - master-slace, fan-in, master-master etc.
1.0 - all features avaialble
0.5 - some features available
0.0 - no features available 2
Audit trail /lineage 0
Ease of use
1.0 - very easy to use
0.5 - easy to use
0.2 - difficult to use 2

6. Monitoring and Management
1.0 - monitoring and mgmt teafure built in
0.5 - some monitoring and mgmt teafure
built in
0.0 - very few monitoring and mgmt
teafure built in 1
14
ACID property, MVCC support
1.0 - ACID compliented and MVCC
supported
0.0 - No ACID complanted or MVCC is not
supported 1
Any SPOF and recovery options
1.0 - No SPOF
0.5 - SPOF exists but easily recoved
0.0 - SPOF exists and cannot be recovered 1
Referential integrity
1.0 - RI is available
0.0 - RI is not available 1
Updates and Revisions
1.0 - Well scheduled update and revision
cycle
0.5 - Scheduled update and revision with
long interval
0.0 - no fixed update and revision ore-set 1
4
Encryption /decryption
1.0 - Well built-in Encryption /decryption
function
0.5 - Encryption /decryption available
0.0 - No Encryption /decryption built in 1.5
Impact on performance
1.0 - Negligible impact
0.5 - noticible impact
0.0 - Significant impact 1
Operation 14
Integrity 4

7. Integration with other security products
1.0 - Integrated with multiple products
0.5 - Integrated to less than 3
0.0 - No integration 0.1
Authentication format To be defined 0.1
Authorization
1.0 - Well established authorization feature
0.5 - some authorization feature
0.0 - No authorization built in 0.1
Country /Continent security for data viewing and changesTo be defined 0.1
Data sharing allowed To be defined 0.1
3
License basis
1.0 -Not costly
0.5 - costly
0.0 - very costly 2.5
Maintenance
1.0 -Not costly
0.5 - costly
0.0 - very costly 2.5
5
Gartner Quadrant 2 Ranking
1.0 - in the latest Gartenerreport
0.5 - in past Gartener reports
0.0 - Not mented in Gartener reports 2
100 2
Total 100
Security 3
Cost 5

8. Oracle
(Times10/12C)
SAP
Hana Kognitio VoltDB GridGain MemSQL SQLFire Altibase
0.1 0.1 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
4 0 4 4 4 4 4 4
0.1 0.1 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
0.05 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
0.1 0.1 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
0.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
0.1 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
0.1 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
mparative analysis:June 2013

9. 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
4.85 1.05 4.78 4.78 4.78 4.78 4.78 4.78
4 2 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
4.8 2.3 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0

10. 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 2.5
5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0 2.5
4.4 0.88 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 0 2.2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0
14.4 5.88 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 0.6 7.2
7 7 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
7 7 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
7 7 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

11. 7 7 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
7 7 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
50 50 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5

12. 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2

13. 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
13 11 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3
1.5 1.5 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

14. 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
2.2 2.2 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
1.25 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
1.25 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
2.5 0 5 5 5 5 5 5
2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
97.75 78.43 59.88 59.88 59.88 59.88 53.28 59.88
Rejected due to expensesRejected due to expenses