DBMS > AlaSQL vs. Coveo vs. FatDB vs. MySQL

System Properties Comparison AlaSQL vs. Coveo vs. FatDB vs. MySQL

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

FatDB/FatCloud has ceased operations as a company with February 2014. FatDB is discontinued and excluded from the ranking.

Description

JavaScript DBMS library

AI-powered hosted search, recommendation and personalization platform providing tools for both low-code and full-code development

A .NET NoSQL DBMS that can integrate with and extend SQL Server.

Widely used open source RDBMS

Primary database model

Document store
Relational DBMS

Search engine

Document store
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Key/Value like access via memcached API

Secondary database models

Document store
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	0.42
Rank	#264	Overall
	#42	Document stores
	#122	Relational DBMS

Score	2.14
Rank	#116	Overall
	#11	Search engines

Score	1029.49
Rank	#2	Overall
	#2	Relational DBMS

Website

alasql.org

www.coveo.com

www.mysql.com

Technical documentation

github.com/AlaSQL/alasql

docs.coveo.com

dev.mysql.com/doc

Developer

Andrey Gershun & Mathias R. Wulff

Coveo

FatCloud

Oracle

since 2010, originally MySQL AB, then Sun

Initial release

2014

2012

1995

Current release

9.0.0, July 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

MIT-License

commercial

Open Source

GPL version 2. Commercial licenses with extended functionallity are 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

JavaScript

C and C++

Server operating systems

server-less, requires a JavaScript environment (browser, Node.js)

hosted

Windows

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

Data scheme

schema-free

hybrid - fields need to be configured prior to indexing, but relationships can be exploited at query time without pre-configuration

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

Close to SQL99, but no user access control, stored procedures and host language bindings.

Via inetgration in SQL Server

yes

with proprietary extensions

APIs and other access methods

JavaScript API

RESTful HTTP API

.NET Client API
LINQ
RESTful HTTP API
RPC
Windows WCF Bindings

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
Proprietary native API

Supported programming languages

JavaScript

C#
Java
JavaScript
Python

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

yes

via applications

yes

proprietary syntax

Triggers

yes

via applications

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

yes

Sharding

horizontal partitioning, sharding with MySQL Cluster or MySQL Fabric

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

yes

selectable replication factor

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

none

Immediate Consistency

Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

not for MyISAM storage engine

Transaction concepts

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

yes

only for local storage and DOM-storage

yes

ACID

not for MyISAM storage engine

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

table locks or row locks depending on storage engine

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

by using IndexedDB, SQL.JS or proprietary FileStorage

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

granular access controls, API key management, content filters

Can implement custom security layer via applications

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.