DBMS > Brytlyt vs. DuckDB vs. FatDB vs. MySQL

System Properties Comparison Brytlyt vs. DuckDB vs. FatDB vs. MySQL

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

FatDB/FatCloud has ceased operations as a company with February 2014. FatDB is discontinued and excluded from the ranking.

Description

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

An embeddable, in-process, column-oriented SQL OLAP RDBMS

A .NET NoSQL DBMS that can integrate with and extend SQL Server.

Widely used open source RDBMS

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Document store
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Key/Value like access via memcached API

Secondary database models

Document store
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	0.27
Rank	#292	Overall
	#132	Relational DBMS

Score	5.61
Rank	#60	Overall
	#34	Relational DBMS

Score	1029.49
Rank	#2	Overall
	#2	Relational DBMS

Website

brytlyt.io

duckdb.org

www.mysql.com

Technical documentation

docs.brytlyt.io

duckdb.org/docs

dev.mysql.com/doc

Developer

Brytlyt

FatCloud

Oracle

since 2010, originally MySQL AB, then Sun

Initial release

2016

2018

2012

1995

Current release

5.0, August 2023

1.0.0, June 2024

9.0.0, July 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

MIT License

commercial

Open Source

GPL version 2. Commercial licenses with extended functionallity are available

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

C, C++ and CUDA

C++

C and C++

Server operating systems

Linux
OS X
Windows

server-less

Windows

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

Data scheme

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.

yes

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

yes

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

Via inetgration in SQL Server

yes

with proprietary extensions

APIs and other access methods

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

Arrow Database Connectivity (ADBC)
CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

.NET Client API
LINQ
RESTful HTTP API
RPC
Windows WCF Bindings

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
Proprietary native API

Supported programming languages

.Net
C
C++
Delphi
Java
Perl
Python
Tcl

C
C#

3rd party driver
C++
Crystal

3rd party driver
Go

3rd party driver
Java
Lisp

3rd party driver
Python
R
Ruby

3rd party driver
Rust
Swift
Zig

3rd party driver

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

user defined functions

in PL/pgSQL

yes

via applications

yes

proprietary syntax

Triggers

yes

via applications

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

Sharding

horizontal partitioning, sharding with MySQL Cluster or MySQL Fabric

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Source-replica replication

none

selectable replication factor

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

Immediate Consistency

Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

not for MyISAM storage engine

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

not for MyISAM storage engine

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

yes, multi-version concurrency control (MVCC)

yes

table locks or row locks depending on storage engine

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

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

Can implement custom security layer via applications

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.