DBMS > Apache IoTDB vs. EJDB vs. Firebolt vs. mSQL vs. Transbase

System Properties Comparison Apache IoTDB vs. EJDB vs. Firebolt vs. mSQL vs. Transbase

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

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

Embeddable document-store database library with JSON representation of queries (in MongoDB style)

Highly scalable cloud data warehouse and analytics product

Forked from Clickhouse

mSQL (Mini SQL) is a simple and lightweight RDBMS

A resource-optimized, high-performance, universally applicable RDBMS

Primary database model

Time Series DBMS

Document store

Relational DBMS

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

Score	1.31
Rank	#164	Overall
	#14	Time Series DBMS

Score	0.31
Rank	#296	Overall
	#44	Document stores

Score	1.73
Rank	#140	Overall
	#63	Relational DBMS

Score	1.27
Rank	#169	Overall
	#76	Relational DBMS

Score	0.17
Rank	#334	Overall
	#148	Relational DBMS

Website

iotdb.apache.org

github.com/Softmotions/ejdb

www.firebolt.io

hughestech.com.au/products/msql

www.transaction.de/en/products/transbase.html

Technical documentation

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

github.com/Softmotions/ejdb/blob/master/README.md

docs.firebolt.io

www.transaction.de/en/products/transbase/features.html

Developer

Apache Software Foundation

Softmotions

Firebolt Analytics Inc.

Hughes Technologies

Transaction Software GmbH

Initial release

2018

2012

2020

1994

1987

Current release

1.1.0, April 2023

4.4, October 2021

Transbase 8.3, 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0

Open Source

GPLv2

commercial

free licenses can be provided

commercial

free development license

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

Java

C and C++

Server operating systems

All OS with a Java VM (>= 1.8)

server-less

hosted

AIX
HP-UX
Linux
OS X
Solaris SPARC/x86
Windows

FreeBSD
Linux
macOS
Solaris
Windows

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

string, integer, double, bool, date, object_id

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.

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like query language

yes

A subset of ANSI SQL is implemented

no subqueries, aggregate functions, views, foreign keys, triggers

yes

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
Native API

in-process shared library

.Net
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

JDBC
ODBC

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
Proprietary native API

Supported programming languages

C
C#
C++
Go
Java
Python
Scala

Actionscript
C
C#
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Lua
Objective-C
Pike
Python
Ruby

Go
JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

C
C++
Delphi
Java
Perl
PHP
Tcl

C
C#
C++
Java
JavaScript
Kotlin
Objective-C
PHP
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

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

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

none

depending on storage layer

none

Source-replica replication

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

none

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

typically not needed, however similar functionality with collection joins possible

yes

Transaction concepts

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

yes

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Read/Write Locking

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

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

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.

Related products and services

We invite representatives of vendors of related products to contact us for presenting information about their offerings here.

More resources

Recent citations in the news

AMD EPYC 4364P & 4564P @ DDR5-4800 / DDR5-5200 vs. Intel Xeon E-2488 Review
6 June 2024, Phoronix

TsFile: A Standard Format for IoT Time Series Data
27 February 2024, The New Stack

Linux 6.5 With AMD P-State EPP Default Brings Performance & Power Efficiency Benefits For Ryzen Servers
21 September 2023, Phoronix

Apache Promotes IoT Database Project
25 September 2020, Datanami

AMD EPYC 8324P / 8324PN Siena 32-Core Siena Linux Server Performance Review
10 October 2023, Phoronix

provided by Google News

10 Best Data Pipeline Tools of 2024 to Boost Your Productivity
20 February 2024, Datamation

Cloud data unicorn Firebolt fires dozens of employees
7 September 2022, CTech

Firebolt, a data warehouse startup, raises $100M at a $1.4B valuation for faster, cheaper analytics on large data sets
26 January 2022, TechCrunch

Firebolt vs Snowflake | Data Warehousing Platform Comparison
1 April 2022, TechRepublic

Firebolt, Israeli Cloud Data Warehouse Startup Forklifts Forward
5 January 2021, Forbes

provided by Google News

Higher Education PS rules out ghost students before PAC
29 November 2018, diggers.news

provided by Google News

Share this page