DBMS > BigObject vs. EJDB vs. HarperDB vs. Lovefield vs. Yaacomo

System Properties Comparison BigObject vs. EJDB vs. HarperDB vs. Lovefield vs. Yaacomo

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

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

Description

Analytic DBMS for real-time computations and queries

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

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.

Embeddable relational database for web apps written in pure JavaScript

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

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

a hierachical model (tree) can be imposed

Document store

Relational DBMS

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

Score	0.13
Rank	#333	Overall
	#147	Relational DBMS

Score	0.27
Rank	#297	Overall
	#44	Document stores

Score	0.55
Rank	#248	Overall
	#38	Document stores

Score	0.29
Rank	#293	Overall
	#133	Relational DBMS

Website

bigobject.io

github.com/Softmotions/ejdb

www.harperdb.io

google.github.io/lovefield

yaacomo.com

Technical documentation

docs.bigobject.io

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

docs.harperdb.io/docs

github.com/google/lovefield/blob/master/docs/spec_index.md

Developer

BigObject, Inc.

Softmotions

HarperDB

Google

Q2WEB GmbH

Initial release

2015

2012

2017

2014

2009

Current release

3.1, August 2021

2.1.12, February 2017

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free community edition available

Open Source

GPLv2

commercial

free community edition 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

Node.js

JavaScript

Server operating systems

Linux

distributed as a docker-image
OS X

distributed as a docker-image (boot2docker)
Windows

distributed as a docker-image (boot2docker)

server-less

Linux
OS X

server-less, requires a JavaScript environment (browser, Node.js)

tested with Chrome, Firefox, IE, Safari

Android
Linux
Windows

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

dynamic schema

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

string, integer, double, bool, date, object_id

yes

JSON data types

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

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like DML and DDL statements

SQL-like data manipulation statements

SQL-like query language

via JavaScript builder pattern

yes

APIs and other access methods

fluentd
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

in-process shared library

JDBC
ODBC
React Hooks
RESTful HTTP/JSON API
WebSocket

JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

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

.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

JavaScript

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Lua

Custom Functions

since release 3.1

Triggers

Using read-only observers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

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

none

horizontal partitioning

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

yes

the nodes on which a table resides can be defined

none

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

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

automatically between fact table and dimension tables

typically not needed, however similar functionality with collection joins possible

yes

Transaction concepts

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

Atomic execution of specific operations

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Read/write lock on objects (tables, trees)

yes

Read/Write Locking

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

yes, using LMDB

yes, by using IndexedDB or the cloud service Firebase Realtime Database

yes

In-memory capabilities

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

yes

using MemoryDB

yes

User concepts

Access control

Access rights for users and 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.

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

Startups of the Year 2023: Meet HarperDB - A Database and Application Development Platform
22 June 2023, hackernoon.com

Unlocking immersive golfing experiences with AWS Wavelength | Amazon Web Services
29 November 2022, AWS Blog

HarperDB: An underdog SQL / NoSQL database | ZDNET
7 February 2018, ZDNet

HarperDB 4.0 Delivers Enterprise-Grade Global Application Development to Every Developer
17 January 2023, Markets Insider

HarperDB is More Than Just a Database: Here's Why
21 August 2021, hackernoon.com

provided by Google News

Share this page