DBMS > Badger vs. LevelDB vs. MySQL vs. TimesTen

System Properties Comparison Badger vs. LevelDB vs. MySQL vs. TimesTen

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

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

Embeddable fast key-value storage library that provides an ordered mapping from string keys to string values

Widely used open source RDBMS

In-Memory RDBMS compatible to Oracle

Primary database model

Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Key/Value like access via memcached API

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
Spatial DBMS

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

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

Score	2.25
Rank	#115	Overall
	#19	Key-value stores

Score	1061.34
Rank	#2	Overall
	#2	Relational DBMS

Score	1.36
Rank	#161	Overall
	#75	Relational DBMS

Website

github.com/dgraph-io/badger

github.com/google/leveldb

www.mysql.com

www.oracle.com/database/technologies/related/timesten.html

Technical documentation

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

github.com/google/leveldb/blob/main/doc/index.md

dev.mysql.com/doc

docs.oracle.com/database/timesten-18.1

Developer

DGraph Labs

Google

Oracle

since 2010, originally MySQL AB, then Sun

Oracle, TimesTen Performance Software, HP

originally founded in HP Labs it was acquired by Oracle in 2005

Initial release

2017

2011

1995

1998

Current release

1.23, February 2021

8.4.0, April 2024

11 Release 2 (11.2.2.8.0)

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache 2.0

Open Source

BSD

Open Source

GPL version 2. Commercial licenses with extended functionallity are 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.

Aiven for MySQL: Fully managed MySQL, deployable in the cloud of your choice, with seamless integrations and lightning-fast setup.

Implementation language

C++

C and C++

Server operating systems

BSD
Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

Illumos
Linux
OS X
Windows

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

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

yes

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

with proprietary extensions

yes

APIs and other access methods

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
Proprietary native API

JDBC
ODBC
ODP.NET
Oracle Call Interface (OCI)

Supported programming languages

C++
Go
Java

3rd party binding
JavaScript (Node.js)

3rd party binding
Python

3rd party binding

Ada
C
C#
C++
D
Delphi
Eiffel
Erlang
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scheme
Tcl

C
C++
Java
PL/SQL

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

proprietary syntax

PL/SQL

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

horizontal partitioning, sharding with MySQL Cluster or MySQL Fabric

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

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

not for MyISAM storage engine

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

not for MyISAM storage engine

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

table locks or row locks depending on storage engine

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

with automatic compression on writes

yes

by means of logfiles and checkpoints

In-memory capabilities

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

yes

User concepts

Access control

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

no user groups or roles

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.