DBMS > Brytlyt vs. Coveo vs. LevelDB vs. OpenQM vs. SQLite

System Properties Comparison Brytlyt vs. Coveo vs. LevelDB vs. OpenQM vs. SQLite

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

Scalable GPU-accelerated RDBMS for very fast analytic and streaming workloads, leveraging PostgreSQL

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

QpenQM is a high-performance, self-tuning, multi-value DBMS

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

Primary database model

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

Score	0.38
Rank	#276	Overall
	#127	Relational DBMS

Score	2.11
Rank	#118	Overall
	#11	Search engines

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

Score	0.34
Rank	#284	Overall
	#10	Multivalue DBMS

Score	111.41
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Website

brytlyt.io

www.coveo.com

github.com/google/leveldb

www.rocketsoftware.com/products/rocket-multivalue-application-development-platform/rocket-open-qm

www.sqlite.org

Technical documentation

docs.brytlyt.io

docs.coveo.com

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

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

Developer

Brytlyt

Coveo

Google

Rocket Software, originally Martin Phillips

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Initial release

2016

2012

2011

1993

2000

Current release

5.0, August 2023

1.23, February 2021

3.4-12

3.46.0 (23 May 2024), May 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

BSD

Open Source

GPLv2, extended commercial license available

Open Source

Public Domain

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, C++ and CUDA

C++

Server operating systems

Linux
OS X
Windows

hosted

Illumos
Linux
OS X
Windows

AIX
FreeBSD
Linux
macOS
Raspberry Pi
Solaris
Windows

server-less

Data scheme

yes

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

schema-free

yes

with some exceptions

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.

yes

specific XML-type available, but no XML query functionality.

yes

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

APIs and other access methods

ADO.NET
JDBC
native C library
ODBC
streaming API for large objects

RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

Supported programming languages

.Net
C
C++
Delphi
Java
Perl
Python
Tcl

C#
Java
JavaScript
Python

C++
Go
Java

3rd party binding
JavaScript (Node.js)

3rd party binding
Python

3rd party binding

.Net
Basic
C
Java
Objective C
PHP
Python

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

in PL/pgSQL

yes

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

yes

none

yes

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Source-replica replication

yes

none

yes

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

yes

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

via file-system locks

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

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

granular access controls, API key management, content filters

Access rights can be defined down to the item level

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.