DBMS > BigObject vs. HarperDB vs. SQLite vs. Transwarp KunDB

System Properties Comparison BigObject vs. HarperDB vs. SQLite vs. Transwarp KunDB

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

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.

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

OLTP DBMS based on a distributed architecture and highly compatible with MySQL and Oracle

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	0.55
Rank	#248	Overall
	#38	Document stores

Score	114.32
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Score	0.10
Rank	#344	Overall
	#151	Relational DBMS

Website

bigobject.io

www.harperdb.io

www.sqlite.org

www.transwarp.cn/en/product/kundb

Technical documentation

docs.bigobject.io

docs.harperdb.io/docs

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

Developer

BigObject, Inc.

HarperDB

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Transwarp

Initial release

2015

2017

2000

Current release

3.1, August 2021

3.45.3 (15 April 2024), April 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free community edition available

commercial

free community edition available

Open Source

Public Domain

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

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
OS X

server-less

Data scheme

yes

dynamic schema

yes

dynamic column types

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

JSON data types

yes

not rigid because of 'dynamic typing' concept.

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

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

yes

APIs and other access methods

fluentd
ODBC
RESTful HTTP API

JDBC
ODBC
React Hooks
RESTful HTTP/JSON API
WebSocket

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

Supported programming languages

.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

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

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Lua

Custom Functions

since release 3.1

yes

Triggers

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

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

Atomic execution of specific operations

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

yes, using LMDB

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

Access rights for users and roles

yes

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.