DBMS > BigObject vs. EJDB vs. LevelDB vs. RavenDB

System Properties Comparison BigObject vs. EJDB vs. LevelDB vs. RavenDB

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

Analytic DBMS for real-time computations and queries

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

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

Open Source Operational and Transactional Enterprise NoSQL Document Database

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

a hierachical model (tree) can be imposed

Document store

Key-value store

Document store

Secondary database models

Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS
Time Series DBMS

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

Score	0.13
Rank	#342	Overall
	#150	Relational DBMS

Score	0.30
Rank	#294	Overall
	#44	Document stores

Score	2.75
Rank	#107	Overall
	#19	Key-value stores

Score	3.01
Rank	#101	Overall
	#17	Document stores

Website

bigobject.io

github.com/Softmotions/ejdb

github.com/google/leveldb

ravendb.net

Technical documentation

docs.bigobject.io

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

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

ravendb.net/docs

Developer

BigObject, Inc.

Softmotions

Google

Hibernating Rhinos

Initial release

2015

2012

2011

2010

Current release

1.23, February 2021

5.4, July 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free community edition available

Open Source

GPLv2

Open Source

BSD

Open Source

AGPL version 3, commercial license available

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

Linux

distributed as a docker-image
OS X

distributed as a docker-image (boot2docker)
Windows

distributed as a docker-image (boot2docker)

server-less

Illumos
Linux
OS X
Windows

Linux
macOS
Raspberry Pi
Windows

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

string, integer, double, bool, date, object_id

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 query language (RQL)

APIs and other access methods

fluentd
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

in-process shared library

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

Supported programming languages

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

C++
Go
Java

3rd party binding
JavaScript (Node.js)

3rd party binding
Python

3rd party binding

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

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Lua

yes

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

Multi-source replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

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.

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

automatically between fact table and dimension tables

typically not needed, however similar functionality with collection joins possible

Transaction concepts

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

ACID, Cluster-wide transaction available

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

with automatic compression on writes

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

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

LevelDB in Ruby — SitePoint
22 October 2014, SitePoint

Microsoft Teams stores auth tokens as cleartext in Windows, Linux, Macs
14 September 2022, BleepingComputer

Pliops unveils XDP-Rocks for RocksDB – Blocks and Files
19 October 2022, Blocks & Files

XanMod, Liquorix Kernels Offer Some Advantages On AMD Ryzen 5 Notebook
26 July 2021, Phoronix

Rust-Based Info Stealers Abuse GitHub Codespaces
19 May 2023, Trend Micro

provided by Google News

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

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

How I Created a RavenDB Python Client
23 September 2016, Visual Studio Magazine

RavenDB Adds Graph Queries
15 May 2019, Datanami

Review: NoSQL database RavenDB
20 March 2019, TechGenix

provided by Google News

Share this page