DBMS > BigObject vs. EsgynDB vs. OrigoDB vs. TerarkDB vs. Transbase

System Properties Comparison BigObject vs. EsgynDB vs. OrigoDB vs. TerarkDB vs. Transbase

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

Analytic DBMS for real-time computations and queries

Enterprise-class SQL-on-Hadoop solution, powered by Apache Trafodion

A fully ACID in-memory object graph database

A key-value store forked from RocksDB with advanced compression algorithms. It can be used standalone or as a storage engine for MySQL and MongoDB

A resource-optimized, high-performance, universally applicable RDBMS

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

a hierachical model (tree) can be imposed

Relational DBMS

Document store
Object oriented DBMS

Key-value 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	0.16
Rank	#329	Overall
	#146	Relational DBMS

Score	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#53	Document stores
	#20	Object oriented DBMS

Score	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#60	Key-value stores

Score	0.11
Rank	#341	Overall
	#150	Relational DBMS

Website

bigobject.io

www.esgyn.cn

origodb.com

github.com/bytedance/terarkdb

www.transaction.de/en/products/transbase.html

Technical documentation

docs.bigobject.io

origodb.com/docs

bytedance.larkoffice.com/docs/doccnZmYFqHBm06BbvYgjsHHcKc

www.transaction.de/en/products/transbase/features.html

Developer

BigObject, Inc.

Esgyn

Robert Friberg et al

ByteDance, originally Terark

Transaction Software GmbH

Initial release

2015

2009

under the name LiveDB

2016

1987

Current release

Transbase 8.3, 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free community edition available

commercial

Open Source

commercial

restricted open source version available

commercial

free development license

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++, Java

C++

C and 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)

Linux

Linux
Windows

FreeBSD
Linux
macOS
Solaris
Windows

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

User defined using .NET types and collections

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.

can be achieved using .NET

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like DML and DDL statements

yes

APIs and other access methods

fluentd
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

.NET Client API
HTTP API
LINQ

C++ API
Java API

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
Proprietary native API

Supported programming languages

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC/ADO.Net

.Net

C++
Java

C
C#
C++
Java
JavaScript
Kotlin
Objective-C
PHP
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Lua

Java Stored Procedures

yes

Triggers

yes

Domain Events

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

Sharding

horizontal partitioning

client side managed; servers are not synchronized

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

Multi-source replication between multi datacenters

Source-replica replication

none

Source-replica 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

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

automatically between fact table and dimension tables

yes

depending on model

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

yes

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Read/write lock on objects (tables, trees)

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

Write ahead log

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

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

Role based authorization

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.

Share this page