DBMS > Badger vs. Hypertable vs. RavenDB vs. Trafodion vs. Yaacomo

System Properties Comparison Badger vs. Hypertable vs. RavenDB vs. Trafodion vs. Yaacomo

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Hypertable has stopped its further development with March 2016 and is removed from the DB-Engines ranking.

Apache Trafodion has been retired in 2021. Therefore it is excluded from the DB-Engines Ranking.

Yaacomo seems to be discontinued and is removed from the DB-Engines ranking

Description

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

An open source BigTable implementation based on distributed file systems such as Hadoop

Open Source Operational and Transactional Enterprise NoSQL Document Database

Transactional SQL-on-Hadoop DBMS

OpenCL based in-memory RDBMS, designed for efficiently utilizing the hardware via parallel computing

Primary database model

Secondary database models

Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS
Time Series DBMS

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

Score	0.22
Rank	#320	Overall
	#47	Key-value stores

Score	2.84
Rank	#101	Overall
	#18	Document stores

Website

github.com/dgraph-io/badger

ravendb.net

trafodion.apache.org

yaacomo.com

Technical documentation

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

ravendb.net/docs

trafodion.apache.org/documentation.html

Developer

DGraph Labs

Hypertable Inc.

Hibernating Rhinos

Apache Software Foundation, originally developed by HP

Q2WEB GmbH

Initial release

2017

2009

2010

2014

2009

Current release

0.9.8.11, March 2016

5.4, July 2022

2.3.0, February 2019

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache 2.0

Open Source

GNU version 3. Commercial license available

Open Source

AGPL version 3, commercial license available

Open Source

Apache 2.0

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++

C++, Java

Server operating systems

BSD
Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

Linux
OS X
Windows

an inofficial Windows port is available

Linux
macOS
Raspberry Pi
Windows

Linux

Android
Linux
Windows

Data scheme

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.

Secondary indexes

restricted

only exact value or prefix value scans

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like query language (RQL)

yes

APIs and other access methods

C++ API
Thrift

.NET Client API
F# Client API
Go Client API
Java Client API
NodeJS Client API
PHP Client API
Python Client API
RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

C++
Java
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby

.Net
C#
F#
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
Ruby

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC/ADO.Net

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Java Stored Procedures

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

Sharding

horizontal partitioning

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

selectable replication factor on file system level

Multi-source replication

yes, via HBase

Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

via user defined functions and HBase

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

none

Immediate Consistency

Default ACID transactions on the local node (eventually consistent across the cluster). Atomic operations with cluster-wide ACID transactions. Eventual consistency for indexes and full-text search indexes.

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID, Cluster-wide transaction available

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

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

Authorization levels configured per client per database

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

TimescaleDB goes distributed; implements ‘Chunking’ over ‘Sharding’ for scaling-out
22 August 2019, Packt Hub

SQL and TimescaleDB. This article takes a closer look into… | by Alibaba Cloud
31 July 2019, DataDrivenInvestor

Decorate your Windows XP with Hyperdesk
30 July 2008, CNET

The Collective: Customize Your Computer & Your Phone With Star Trek
18 March 2009, TrekMovie

5 Free NoSQL Database Certification Courses Online in 2024
31 January 2024, Analytics India Magazine

provided by Google News

RavenDB Launches Version 6.0 Lightning Fast Queries, Data Integrations, Corax Indexing Engine, and Sharding
3 October 2023, PR Newswire

Install the NoSQL RavenDB Data System
14 May 2021, The New Stack

RavenDB Welcomes David Baruc as Chief Revenue Officer: Seasoned Tech Leader to Drive Global Sales and ...
13 June 2023, PR Newswire

RavenDB Adds Graph Queries
15 May 2019, Datanami

Review: NoSQL database RavenDB
20 March 2019, TechGenix

provided by Google News

Evaluating HTAP Databases for Machine Learning Applications
2 November 2016, KDnuggets

Low-latency, distributed database architectures are critical for emerging fog applications
7 April 2022, Embedded Computing Design

provided by Google News

Share this page