DBMS > Badger vs. Drizzle vs. HarperDB vs. Kinetica vs. SQLite

System Properties Comparison Badger vs. Drizzle vs. HarperDB vs. Kinetica vs. SQLite

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 embeddable, persistent, simple and fast Key-Value Store, written purely in Go.

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

Ultra-low latency distributed database with an intuitive REST API supporting NoSQL and SQL (including joins). Deployment of functions and databases simultaneously with a consolidated node-level architecture.

Fully vectorized database across both GPUs and CPUs

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

Primary database model

Secondary database models

Spatial DBMS
Time Series DBMS

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

Score	0.14
Rank	#331	Overall
	#49	Key-value stores

Score	0.55
Rank	#248	Overall
	#38	Document stores

Score	0.64
Rank	#236	Overall
	#109	Relational DBMS

Score	114.32
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Website

github.com/dgraph-io/badger

www.harperdb.io

www.kinetica.com

www.sqlite.org

Technical documentation

godoc.org/github.com/dgraph-io/badger

docs.harperdb.io/docs

docs.kinetica.com

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

Developer

DGraph Labs

Drizzle project, originally started by Brian Aker

HarperDB

Kinetica

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Initial release

2017

2008

2017

2012

2000

Current release

7.2.4, September 2012

3.1, August 2021

7.1, August 2021

3.45.3 (15 April 2024), April 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache 2.0

Open Source

GNU GPL

commercial

free community edition available

commercial

Open Source

Public Domain

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

C++

Node.js

C, C++

Server operating systems

BSD
Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X

Linux
OS X

Linux

server-less

Data scheme

schema-free

yes

dynamic schema

yes

dynamic column types

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

JSON data types

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

yes

with proprietary extensions

SQL-like data manipulation statements

SQL-like DML and DDL statements

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

APIs and other access methods

JDBC

JDBC
ODBC
React Hooks
RESTful HTTP/JSON API
WebSocket

JDBC
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

Supported programming languages

C
C++
Java
PHP

.Net
C
C#
C++
ColdFusion
D
Dart
Delphi
Erlang
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Lisp
MatLab
Objective C
Perl
PHP
PowerShell
Prolog
Python
R
Ruby
Rust
Scala
Swift

C++
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

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

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Custom Functions

since release 3.1

user defined functions

Triggers

hooks for callbacks inside the server can be used.

yes

triggers when inserted values for one or more columns fall within a specified range

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

Sharding

A table resides as a whole on one (or more) nodes in a cluster

Sharding

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

yes

the nodes on which a table resides can be defined

Source-replica replication

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

none

Immediate Consistency

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Atomic execution of specific operations

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

via file-system locks

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

yes, using LMDB

yes

In-memory capabilities

Is there an option to define some or all structures to be held in-memory only.

yes

GPU vRAM or System RAM

yes

User concepts

Access control

Pluggable authentication mechanisms

e.g. LDAP, HTTP

Access rights for users and roles

Access rights for users and roles on table level

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.