DBMS > Badger vs. EJDB vs. LeanXcale vs. Microsoft SQL Server vs. RDFox

System Properties Comparison Badger vs. EJDB vs. LeanXcale vs. Microsoft SQL Server vs. RDFox

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

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

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

A highly scalable full ACID SQL database with fast NoSQL data ingestion and GIS capabilities

Microsofts flagship relational DBMS

High performance knowledge graph and semantic reasoning engine

Primary database model

Key-value store

Document store

Key-value store
Relational DBMS

Relational DBMS

Graph DBMS
RDF store

Secondary database models

Document store
Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS

Relational DBMS

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

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

Score	0.27
Rank	#297	Overall
	#44	Document stores

Score	0.29
Rank	#291	Overall
	#41	Key-value stores
	#132	Relational DBMS

Score	824.29
Rank	#3	Overall
	#3	Relational DBMS

Score	0.23
Rank	#308	Overall
	#25	Graph DBMS
	#14	RDF stores

Website

github.com/dgraph-io/badger

github.com/Softmotions/ejdb

www.leanxcale.com

www.microsoft.com/en-us/sql-server

www.oxfordsemantic.tech

Technical documentation

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

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

learn.microsoft.com/en-US/sql/sql-server

docs.oxfordsemantic.tech

Developer

DGraph Labs

Softmotions

LeanXcale

Microsoft

Oxford Semantic Technologies

Initial release

2017

2012

2015

1989

2017

Current release

SQL Server 2022, November 2022

6.0, Septermber 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache 2.0

Open Source

GPLv2

commercial

restricted free version is available

commercial

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++

Server operating systems

BSD
Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

server-less

Linux
Windows

Linux
macOS
Windows

Data scheme

schema-free

yes

RDF schemas

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.

yes

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

through Apache Derby

yes

APIs and other access methods

in-process shared library

JDBC
Kafka Connector
ODBC
proprietary key/value interface
Spark Connector

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
OLE DB
Tabular Data Stream (TDS)

RESTful HTTP API
SPARQL 1.1

Supported programming languages

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

C
Java
Scala

C#
C++
Delphi
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Visual Basic

C
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Transact SQL, .NET languages, R, Python and (with SQL Server 2019) Java

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

tables can be distributed across several files (horizontal partitioning); sharding through federation

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

yes, but depending on the SQL-Server Edition

replication via a shared file system

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 in stand-alone mode, Eventual Consistency in replicated setups

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

ACID

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

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

Roles, resources, and access types

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.