DBMS > BoltDB vs. Graph Engine vs. RavenDB vs. SWC-DB vs. Transbase

System Properties Comparison BoltDB vs. Graph Engine vs. RavenDB vs. SWC-DB vs. Transbase

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

A distributed in-memory data processing engine, underpinned by a strongly-typed RAM store and a general distributed computation engine

Open Source Operational and Transactional Enterprise NoSQL Document Database

A high performance, scalable Wide Column DBMS

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

Primary database model

Key-value store

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

Document store

Wide column store

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS
Time Series DBMS

Time Series DBMS

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

Score	0.76
Rank	#224	Overall
	#32	Key-value stores

Score	0.62
Rank	#240	Overall
	#21	Graph DBMS
	#35	Key-value stores

Score	3.01
Rank	#101	Overall
	#17	Document stores

Score	0.01
Rank	#387	Overall
	#13	Wide column stores

Score	0.15
Rank	#337	Overall
	#147	Relational DBMS

Website

github.com/boltdb/bolt

www.graphengine.io

ravendb.net

github.com/kashirin-alex/swc-db
www.swcdb.org

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

Technical documentation

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

ravendb.net/docs

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

Developer

Microsoft

Hibernating Rhinos

Alex Kashirin

Transaction Software GmbH

Initial release

2013

2010

2020

1987

Current release

5.4, July 2022

0.5, April 2021

Transbase 8.3, 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

MIT License

Open Source

MIT License

Open Source

AGPL version 3, commercial license available

Open Source

GPL V3

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

.NET and C

C++

C and C++

Server operating systems

BSD
Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

.NET

Linux
macOS
Raspberry Pi
Windows

Linux

FreeBSD
Linux
macOS
Solaris
Windows

Data scheme

schema-free

yes

schema-free

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

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 query language (RQL)

SQL-like query language

yes

APIs and other access methods

RESTful HTTP API

.NET Client API
F# Client API
Go Client API
Java Client API
NodeJS Client API
PHP Client API
Python Client API
RESTful HTTP API

Proprietary protocol
Thrift

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
Proprietary native API

Supported programming languages

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

.Net
C#
F#
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
Ruby

C++

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

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

horizontal partitioning

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

Multi-source replication

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

Default ACID transactions on the local node (eventually consistent across the cluster). Atomic operations with cluster-wide ACID transactions. Eventual consistency for indexes and full-text search indexes.

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

yes

ACID, Cluster-wide transaction available

yes

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

optional: either by committing a write-ahead log (WAL) to the local persistent storage or by dumping the memory to a persistent storage

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

Authorization levels configured per client per database

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.

More resources

Recent citations in the news

4 Instructive Postmortems on Data Downtime and Loss
1 March 2024, The Hacker News

Grafana Loki: Architecture Summary and Running in Kubernetes
14 March 2023, hackernoon.com

Roblox’s cloud-native catastrophe: A post mortem
31 January 2022, InfoWorld

How to Put a GUI on Ansible, Using Semaphore
22 April 2023, The New Stack

provided by Google News

Trinity
2 June 2023, Microsoft

Open source Microsoft Graph Engine takes on Neo4j
13 February 2017, InfoWorld

IBM releases Graph, a service that can outperform SQL databases
27 July 2016, GeekWire

How Google and Microsoft taught search to "understand" the Web
6 June 2012, Ars Technica

Aerospike Is Now a Graph Database, Too
21 June 2023, Datanami

provided by Google News

RavenDB Welcomes David Baruc as Chief Revenue Officer: Seasoned Tech Leader to Drive Global Sales and ...
13 June 2023, PR Newswire

Install the NoSQL RavenDB Data System
14 May 2021, The New Stack

How I Created a RavenDB Python Client
23 September 2016, Visual Studio Magazine

RavenDB Adds Graph Queries
15 May 2019, Datanami

Review: NoSQL database RavenDB
20 March 2019, TechGenix

provided by Google News

2022 All O-Zone Football Team
17 December 2022, Ozarks Sports Zone

provided by Google News

Share this page