DBMS > Apache IoTDB vs. Drizzle vs. SQLite vs. TerarkDB

System Properties Comparison Apache IoTDB vs. Drizzle vs. SQLite vs. TerarkDB

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Drizzle has published its last release in September 2012. The open-source project is discontinued and Drizzle is excluded from the DB-Engines ranking.

Description

An IoT native database with high performance for data management and analysis, deployable on the edge and the cloud and integrated with Hadoop, Spark and Flink

MySQL fork with a pluggable micro-kernel and with an emphasis of performance over compatibility.

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

A key-value store forked from RocksDB with advanced compression algorithms. It can be used standalone or as a storage engine for MySQL and MongoDB

Primary database model

Time Series DBMS

Relational DBMS

Key-value store

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

Score	1.31
Rank	#159	Overall
	#14	Time Series DBMS

Score	103.35
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Score	0.00
Rank	#385	Overall
	#61	Key-value stores

Website

iotdb.apache.org

www.sqlite.org

github.com/bytedance/terarkdb

Technical documentation

iotdb.apache.org/UserGuide/Master/QuickStart/QuickStart.html

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

bytedance.larkoffice.com/docs/doccnZmYFqHBm06BbvYgjsHHcKc

Developer

Apache Software Foundation

Drizzle project, originally started by Brian Aker

Dwayne Richard Hipp

ByteDance, originally Terark

Initial release

2018

2008

2000

2016

Current release

1.1.0, April 2023

7.2.4, September 2012

3.46.1 (13 August 2024), August 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0

Open Source

GNU GPL

Open Source

Public Domain

commercial

restricted open source version available

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

Java

C++

Server operating systems

All OS with a Java VM (>= 1.8)

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X

server-less

Data scheme

yes

dynamic column types

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

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.

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like query language

yes

with proprietary extensions

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
Native API

JDBC

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

C++ API
Java API

Supported programming languages

C
C#
C++
Go
Java
Python
Scala

C
C++
Java
PHP

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

C++
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Triggers

yes

hooks for callbacks inside the server can be used.

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

horizontal partitioning (by time range) + vertical partitioning (by deviceId)

Sharding

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

selectable replication methods; using Raft/IoTConsensus algorithm to ensure strong/eventual data consistency among multiple replicas

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Integration with Hadoop and Spark

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Eventual Consistency
Strong Consistency with Raft

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

via file-system locks

yes

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

yes

Pluggable authentication mechanisms

e.g. LDAP, HTTP

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.