DBMS > BoltDB vs. Coveo vs. LevelDB vs. SQLite vs. Vitess

System Properties Comparison BoltDB vs. Coveo vs. LevelDB vs. SQLite vs. Vitess

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

AI-powered hosted search, recommendation and personalization platform providing tools for both low-code and full-code development

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

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

Scalable, distributed, cloud-native DBMS, extending MySQL

Primary database model

Secondary database models

Document store
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	0.80
Rank	#215	Overall
	#31	Key-value stores

Score	2.11
Rank	#118	Overall
	#11	Search engines

Score	2.25
Rank	#115	Overall
	#19	Key-value stores

Score	111.41
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Score	0.88
Rank	#203	Overall
	#95	Relational DBMS

Website

github.com/boltdb/bolt

www.coveo.com

github.com/google/leveldb

www.sqlite.org

vitess.io

Technical documentation

docs.coveo.com

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

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

vitess.io/docs

Developer

Coveo

Google

Dwayne Richard Hipp

The Linux Foundation, PlanetScale

Initial release

2013

2012

2011

2000

2013

Current release

1.23, February 2021

3.46.0 (23 May 2024), May 2024

15.0.2, December 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

MIT License

commercial

Open Source

BSD

Open Source

Public Domain

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0, commercial licenses available

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.

Implementation language

C++

Server operating systems

BSD
Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

hosted

Illumos
Linux
OS X
Windows

server-less

Docker
Linux
macOS

Data scheme

schema-free

hybrid - fields need to be configured prior to indexing, but relationships can be exploited at query time without pre-configuration

schema-free

yes

dynamic column types

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

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

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

yes

with proprietary extensions

APIs and other access methods

RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

ADO.NET
JDBC
MySQL protocol
ODBC

Supported programming languages

C#
Java
JavaScript
Python

C++
Go
Java

3rd party binding
JavaScript (Node.js)

3rd party binding
Python

3rd party binding

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

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

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

proprietary syntax

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

yes

none

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

yes

none

Multi-source 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 across shards
Immediate Consistency within a shard

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

not for MyISAM storage engine

Transaction concepts

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

yes

ACID

ACID at shard level

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

via file-system locks

yes

table locks or row locks depending on storage engine

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

granular access controls, API key management, content filters

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

no user groups or roles

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.