DBMS > Cachelot.io vs. EJDB vs. OrigoDB vs. Prometheus vs. TimescaleDB

System Properties Comparison Cachelot.io vs. EJDB vs. OrigoDB vs. Prometheus vs. TimescaleDB

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

In-memory caching system

Embeddable document-store database library with JSON representation of queries (in MongoDB style)

A fully ACID in-memory object graph database

Open-source Time Series DBMS and monitoring system

A time series DBMS optimized for fast ingest and complex queries, based on PostgreSQL

Primary database model

Key-value store

Document store

Document store
Object oriented DBMS

Time Series DBMS

Secondary database models

Relational DBMS

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

Score	0.00
Rank	#396	Overall
	#64	Key-value stores

Score	0.30
Rank	#294	Overall
	#44	Document stores

Score	0.03
Rank	#378	Overall
	#51	Document stores
	#18	Object oriented DBMS

Score	7.92
Rank	#51	Overall
	#2	Time Series DBMS

Score	4.87
Rank	#74	Overall
	#4	Time Series DBMS

Website

cachelot.io

github.com/Softmotions/ejdb

origodb.com

prometheus.io

www.timescale.com

Technical documentation

github.com/Softmotions/ejdb/blob/master/README.md

origodb.com/docs

prometheus.io/docs

docs.timescale.com

Developer

Softmotions

Robert Friberg et al

Timescale

Initial release

2015

2012

2009

under the name LiveDB

2015

2017

Current release

2.13.0, November 2023

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Simplified BSD License

Open Source

GPLv2

Open Source

Apache 2.0

Open Source

Apache 2.0

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++

Server operating systems

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X

server-less

Linux
Windows

Linux
OS X
Windows

Data scheme

schema-free

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

string, integer, double, bool, date, object_id

User defined using .NET types and collections

Numeric data only

numerics, strings, booleans, arrays, JSON blobs, geospatial dimensions, currencies, binary data, other complex data types

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.

can be achieved using .NET

Import of XML data possible

yes

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

full PostgreSQL SQL syntax

APIs and other access methods

Memcached protocol

in-process shared library

.NET Client API
HTTP API
LINQ

RESTful HTTP/JSON API

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

Supported programming languages

.Net
C
C++
ColdFusion
Erlang
Java
Lisp
Lua
OCaml
OCaml
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby

Actionscript
C
C#
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Lua
Objective-C
Pike
Python
Ruby

.Net

.Net
C++
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Python
Ruby

.Net
C
C++
Delphi
Java

JDBC
JavaScript
Perl
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Scheme
Tcl

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

user defined functions, PL/pgSQL, PL/Tcl, PL/Perl, PL/Python, PL/Java, PL/PHP, PL/R, PL/Ruby, PL/Scheme, PL/Unix shell

Triggers

yes

Domain Events

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

horizontal partitioning

client side managed; servers are not synchronized

Sharding

yes, across time and space (hash partitioning) attributes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

Source-replica replication

yes

by Federation

Source-replica replication with hot standby and reads on replicas

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

none

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

typically not needed, however similar functionality with collection joins possible

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

Read/Write Locking

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.

yes

User concepts

Access control

Role based authorization

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

VictoriaMetrics Offers Prometheus Replacement for Time Series Monitoring
17 July 2023, The New Stack

How to reduce Istio sidecar metric cardinality with Amazon Managed Service for Prometheus | Amazon Web Services
10 October 2023, AWS Blog

A Comprehensive Comparison of Prometheus and Grafana in 2023
8 December 2023, hackernoon.com

Linux System Monitoring with Prometheus, Grafana, and collectd
1 February 2024, Linux Journal

Consider Grafana vs. Prometheus for your time-series tools
18 October 2021, TechTarget

provided by Google News

TimescaleDB Is a Vector Database Now, Too
25 September 2023, Datanami

TimescaleDB for Azure Database for PostgreSQL to power IoT and time-series workloads | Azure updates
18 March 2019, azure.microsoft.com

Visualizing IoT Data at Scale With Hopara and TimescaleDB
16 May 2023, Embedded Computing Design

Timescale Announces Corporate Rebrand Reflecting Company's Growth
17 May 2023, PR Newswire

Timescale Valuation Rockets to Over $1B with $110M Round, Marking the Explosive Rise of Time-Series Data
22 February 2022, Business Wire

provided by Google News

Share this page