DBMS > BigObject vs. Databend vs. OpenQM vs. SQLite vs. TimescaleDB

System Properties Comparison BigObject vs. Databend vs. OpenQM vs. SQLite vs. TimescaleDB

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

Analytic DBMS for real-time computations and queries

An open-source, elastic, and workload-aware cloud data warehouse designed to meet businesses' massive-scale analytics needs at low cost and with low complexity

QpenQM is a high-performance, self-tuning, multi-value DBMS

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

A time series DBMS optimized for fast ingest and complex queries, based on PostgreSQL

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

a hierachical model (tree) can be imposed

Secondary database models

Relational DBMS

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

Score	0.19
Rank	#329	Overall
	#146	Relational DBMS

Score	0.34
Rank	#283	Overall
	#130	Relational DBMS

Score	0.34
Rank	#284	Overall
	#10	Multivalue DBMS

Score	111.41
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Score	4.46
Rank	#71	Overall
	#5	Time Series DBMS

Website

bigobject.io

github.com/datafuselabs/databend
www.databend.com

www.rocketsoftware.com/products/rocket-multivalue-application-development-platform/rocket-open-qm

www.sqlite.org

www.timescale.com

Technical documentation

docs.bigobject.io

docs.databend.com

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

docs.timescale.com

Developer

BigObject, Inc.

Databend Labs

Rocket Software, originally Martin Phillips

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Timescale

Initial release

2015

2021

1993

2000

2017

Current release

1.0.59, April 2023

3.4-12

3.46.0 (23 May 2024), May 2024

2.15.0, May 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free community edition available

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0

Open Source

GPLv2, extended commercial license available

Open Source

Public Domain

Open Source

Apache 2.0

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

Rust

Server operating systems

Linux

distributed as a docker-image
OS X

distributed as a docker-image (boot2docker)
Windows

distributed as a docker-image (boot2docker)

hosted
Linux
macOS

AIX
FreeBSD
Linux
macOS
Raspberry Pi
Solaris
Windows

server-less

Linux
OS X
Windows

Data scheme

yes

with some exceptions

yes

dynamic column types

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

not rigid because of 'dynamic typing' concept.

numerics, strings, booleans, arrays, JSON blobs, geospatial dimensions, currencies, binary data, other complex data types

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

SQL-like DML and DDL statements

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

yes

full PostgreSQL SQL syntax

APIs and other access methods

fluentd
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

CLI Client
JDBC
RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

ADO.NET
JDBC
native C library
ODBC
streaming API for large objects

Supported programming languages

Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Python
Rust

.Net
Basic
C
Java
Objective C
PHP
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

.Net
C
C++
Delphi
Java

JDBC
JavaScript
Perl
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Scheme
Tcl

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Lua

yes

user defined functions, PL/pgSQL, PL/Tcl, PL/Perl, PL/Python, PL/Java, PL/PHP, PL/R, PL/Ruby, PL/Scheme, PL/Unix shell

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

yes

none

yes, across time and space (hash partitioning) attributes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

yes

none

Source-replica replication with hot standby and reads on replicas

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

none

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

automatically between fact table and dimension tables

yes

Transaction concepts

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

yes

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Read/write lock on objects (tables, trees)

yes

via file-system locks

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

Users with fine-grained authorization concept, user roles

Access rights can be defined down to the item level

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.