DBMS > Brytlyt vs. Lovefield vs. Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. Qdrant

System Properties Comparison Brytlyt vs. Lovefield vs. Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. Qdrant

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

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

Embeddable relational database for web apps written in pure JavaScript

Globally distributed, horizontally scalable, multi-model database service

A Wide Column Store for rapid development using massive semi-structured datasets

A high-performance vector database with neural network or semantic-based matching

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Document store
Graph DBMS
Key-value store
Wide column store

Wide column store

Vector DBMS

Secondary database models

Spatial DBMS

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

Score	0.38
Rank	#276	Overall
	#127	Relational DBMS

Score	0.33
Rank	#286	Overall
	#131	Relational DBMS

Score	27.71
Rank	#27	Overall
	#4	Document stores
	#2	Graph DBMS
	#3	Key-value stores
	#3	Wide column stores

Score	4.04
Rank	#77	Overall
	#6	Wide column stores

Score	1.28
Rank	#167	Overall
	#7	Vector DBMS

Website

brytlyt.io

google.github.io/lovefield

azure.microsoft.com/services/cosmos-db

azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/storage/tables

github.com/qdrant/qdrant
qdrant.tech

Technical documentation

docs.brytlyt.io

github.com/google/lovefield/blob/master/docs/spec_index.md

learn.microsoft.com/azure/cosmos-db

qdrant.tech/documentation

Developer

Brytlyt

Google

Microsoft

Qdrant

Initial release

2016

2014

2012

2021

Current release

5.0, August 2023

2.1.12, February 2017

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache 2.0

commercial

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0

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

JavaScript

Rust

Server operating systems

Linux
OS X
Windows

server-less, requires a JavaScript environment (browser, Node.js)

tested with Chrome, Firefox, IE, Safari

hosted

Docker
Linux
macOS
Windows

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

JSON types

yes

Numbers, Strings, Geo, Boolean

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.

Secondary indexes

yes

All properties auto-indexed by default

yes

Keywords, numberic ranges, geo, full-text

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

SQL-like query language

via JavaScript builder pattern

SQL-like query language

APIs and other access methods

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

DocumentDB API
Graph API (Gremlin)
MongoDB API
RESTful HTTP API
Table API

RESTful HTTP API

gRPC
OpenAPI 3.0
RESTful HTTP/JSON API

OpenAPI 3.0

Supported programming languages

.Net
C
C++
Delphi
Java
Perl
Python
Tcl

JavaScript

.Net
C#
Java
JavaScript
JavaScript (Node.js)
MongoDB client drivers written for various programming languages
Python

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

.Net
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Python
Rust

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions

in PL/pgSQL

JavaScript

Triggers

yes

Using read-only observers

JavaScript

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

Sharding

Implicit feature of the cloud service

Sharding

Implicit feature of the cloud service

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Source-replica replication

none

yes

Implicit feature of the cloud service

yes

implicit feature of the cloud service. Replication either local, cross-facility or geo-redundant.

Collection-level replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

with Hadoop integration

Integration with Hadoop/HDInsight on Azure*

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Bounded Staleness
Consistent Prefix
Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

Consistency level configurable on request level
Session Consistency

Immediate Consistency

Eventual Consistency, tunable consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Multi-item ACID transactions with snapshot isolation within a partition

optimistic locking

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

yes, by using IndexedDB or the cloud service Firebase Realtime Database

yes

In-memory capabilities

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

yes

using MemoryDB

yes

User concepts

Access control

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

Access rights can be defined down to the item level

Access rights based on private key authentication or shared access signatures

Key-based authentication

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.