DBMS > BoltDB vs. CrateDB vs. SiteWhere vs. SQLite

System Properties Comparison BoltDB vs. CrateDB vs. SiteWhere vs. SQLite

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

An embedded key-value store for Go.

Distributed Database based on Lucene

M2M integration platform for persisting/querying time series data

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

Primary database model

Key-value store

Document store
Spatial DBMS
Search engine
Time Series DBMS
Vector DBMS

Time Series DBMS

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Relational DBMS

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

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

Score	0.71
Rank	#227	Overall
	#37	Document stores
	#5	Spatial DBMS
	#16	Search engines
	#19	Time Series DBMS
	#10	Vector DBMS

Score	0.06
Rank	#383	Overall
	#43	Time Series DBMS

Score	111.41
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Website

github.com/boltdb/bolt

cratedb.com

github.com/sitewhere/sitewhere

www.sqlite.org

Technical documentation

cratedb.com/docs

sitewhere1.sitewhere.io/index.html

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

Developer

Crate

SiteWhere

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Initial release

2013

2010

2000

Current release

3.46.0 (23 May 2024), May 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

MIT License

Open Source

Common Public Attribution License Version 1.0

Open Source

Public Domain

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

Java

Server operating systems

BSD
Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

All Operating Systems, including Kubernetes with CrateDB Kubernetes Operator support

Linux
OS X
Windows

server-less

Data scheme

schema-free

Flexible Schema (defined schema, partial schema, schema free)

predefined scheme

yes

dynamic column types

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

not rigid because of 'dynamic typing' concept.

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, but no triggers and constraints, and PostgreSQL compatibility

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

APIs and other access methods

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
PostgreSQL wire protocol
Prometheus Remote Read/Write
RESTful HTTP API

HTTP REST

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

Supported programming languages

.NET
Erlang
Go

community maintained client
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)

community maintained client
Perl

community maintained client
PHP
Python
R
Ruby

community maintained client
Scala

community maintained client

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

user defined functions (Javascript)

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

Sharding

based on HBase

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

Configurable replication on table/partition-level

selectable replication factor

based on HBase

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

none

Eventual Consistency
Read-after-write consistency on record level

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

yes

unique row identifiers can be used for implementing an optimistic concurrency control strategy

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

via file-system locks

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

rights management via user accounts

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

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.