DBMS > Brytlyt vs. GeoMesa vs. OrigoDB vs. SQLite vs. TerarkDB

System Properties Comparison Brytlyt vs. GeoMesa vs. OrigoDB vs. SQLite vs. TerarkDB

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

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

GeoMesa is a distributed spatio-temporal DBMS based on various systems as storage layer.

A fully ACID in-memory object graph database

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

A key-value store forked from RocksDB with advanced compression algorithms. It can be used standalone or as a storage engine for MySQL and MongoDB

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Spatial DBMS

Document store
Object oriented DBMS

Relational DBMS

Key-value store

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

Score	0.29
Rank	#288	Overall
	#131	Relational DBMS

Score	0.78
Rank	#213	Overall
	#4	Spatial DBMS

Score	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#53	Document stores
	#20	Object oriented DBMS

Score	114.32
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Score	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#60	Key-value stores

Website

github.com/bytedance/terarkdb

Technical documentation

docs.brytlyt.io

www.geomesa.org/documentation/stable/user/index.html

origodb.com/docs

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

bytedance.larkoffice.com/docs/doccnZmYFqHBm06BbvYgjsHHcKc

Developer

Brytlyt

CCRi and others

Robert Friberg et al

Dwayne Richard Hipp

ByteDance, originally Terark

Initial release

2016

2014

2009

under the name LiveDB

2000

2016

Current release

5.0, August 2023

4.0.5, February 2024

3.45.3 (15 April 2024), April 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache License 2.0

Open Source

Public Domain

commercial

restricted open source version 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

Scala

C++

Server operating systems

Linux
OS X
Windows

Linux
Windows

server-less

Data scheme

yes

dynamic column types

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

User defined using .NET types and collections

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.

can be achieved using .NET

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

.NET Client API
HTTP API
LINQ

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

C++ API
Java API

Supported programming languages

.Net
C
C++
Delphi
Java
Perl
Python
Tcl

.Net

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

C++
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in PL/pgSQL

yes

Triggers

yes

Domain Events

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

depending on storage layer

horizontal partitioning

client side managed; servers are not synchronized

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Source-replica replication

depending on storage layer

Source-replica replication

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

depending on storage layer

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

depending on model

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

via file-system locks

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

Write ahead log

yes

In-memory capabilities

Is there an option to define some or all structures to be held in-memory only.

depending on storage layer

yes

User concepts

Access control

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

yes

depending on the DBMS used for storage

Role based authorization

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.