DBMS > BigObject vs. Firebolt vs. MySQL vs. Sequoiadb

System Properties Comparison BigObject vs. Firebolt vs. MySQL vs. Sequoiadb

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

Highly scalable cloud data warehouse and analytics product

Forked from Clickhouse

Widely used open source RDBMS

NewSQL database with distributed OLTP and SQL

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

a hierachical model (tree) can be imposed

Relational DBMS

Key/Value like access via memcached API

Document store
Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	0.19
Rank	#329	Overall
	#146	Relational DBMS

Score	1.73
Rank	#140	Overall
	#63	Relational DBMS

Score	1061.34
Rank	#2	Overall
	#2	Relational DBMS

Score	0.50
Rank	#258	Overall
	#41	Document stores
	#120	Relational DBMS

Website

Technical documentation

docs.bigobject.io

docs.firebolt.io

dev.mysql.com/doc

www.sequoiadb.com/en/index.php?m=Files&a=index

Developer

BigObject, Inc.

Firebolt Analytics Inc.

Oracle

since 2010, originally MySQL AB, then Sun

Sequoiadb Ltd.

Initial release

2015

2020

1995

2013

Current release

8.4.0, April 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free community edition available

commercial

Open Source

GPL version 2. Commercial licenses with extended functionallity are available

Open Source

Server: AGPL; Client: Apache V2

Cloud-based only

Only available as a cloud service

yes

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 and C++

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)

hosted

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

Linux

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

oid, date, timestamp, binary, regex

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

with proprietary extensions

SQL-like query language

APIs and other access methods

fluentd
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

.Net
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
Proprietary native API

proprietary protocol using JSON

Supported programming languages

Go
JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

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

.Net
C++
Java
PHP
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Lua

yes

proprietary syntax

JavaScript

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

horizontal partitioning, sharding with MySQL Cluster or MySQL Fabric

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

depending on storage layer

Multi-source replication
Source-replica 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

Eventual Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

automatically between fact table and dimension tables

yes

not for MyISAM storage engine

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

not for MyISAM storage engine

Document is locked during a transaction

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Read/write lock on objects (tables, trees)

yes

table locks or row locks depending on storage engine

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

no user groups or roles

simple password-based access control

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.