DBMS > Coveo vs. Firebase Realtime Database vs. MySQL vs. OrigoDB

System Properties Comparison Coveo vs. Firebase Realtime Database vs. MySQL vs. OrigoDB

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

AI-powered hosted search, recommendation and personalization platform providing tools for both low-code and full-code development

Cloud-hosted realtime document store. iOS, Android, and JavaScript clients share one Realtime Database instance and automatically receive updates with the newest data.

Widely used open source RDBMS

A fully ACID in-memory object graph database

Primary database model

Search engine

Document store

Relational DBMS

Key/Value like access via memcached API

Document store
Object oriented DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	2.14
Rank	#116	Overall
	#11	Search engines

Score	13.60
Rank	#39	Overall
	#6	Document stores

Score	1029.49
Rank	#2	Overall
	#2	Relational DBMS

Score	0.00
Rank	#385	Overall
	#54	Document stores
	#21	Object oriented DBMS

Website

www.coveo.com

firebase.google.com/products/realtime-database

www.mysql.com

origodb.com

Technical documentation

docs.coveo.com

firebase.google.com/docs/database

dev.mysql.com/doc

origodb.com/docs

Developer

Coveo

Google

acquired by Google 2014

Oracle

since 2010, originally MySQL AB, then Sun

Robert Friberg et al

Initial release

2012

1995

2009

under the name LiveDB

Current release

9.0.0, July 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

GPL version 2. Commercial licenses with extended functionallity are available

Open Source

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 and C++

Server operating systems

hosted

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

Linux
Windows

Data scheme

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

schema-free

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

User defined using .NET types and collections

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

can be achieved using .NET

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

with proprietary extensions

APIs and other access methods

RESTful HTTP API

Android
iOS
JavaScript API
RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
Proprietary native API

.NET Client API
HTTP API
LINQ

Supported programming languages

C#
Java
JavaScript
Python

Java
JavaScript
Objective-C

Ada
C
C#
C++
D
Delphi
Eiffel
Erlang
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scheme
Tcl

.Net

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

limited functionality with using 'rules'

yes

proprietary syntax

yes

Triggers

yes

Callbacks are triggered when data changes

yes

Domain Events

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

yes

horizontal partitioning, sharding with MySQL Cluster or MySQL Fabric

horizontal partitioning

client side managed; servers are not synchronized

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Eventual Consistency

if the client is offline
Immediate Consistency

if the client is online

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

not for MyISAM storage engine

depending on model

Transaction concepts

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

yes

ACID

not for MyISAM storage engine

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

table locks or row locks depending on storage engine

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

Write ahead log

In-memory capabilities

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

yes

User concepts

Access control

granular access controls, API key management, content filters

yes, based on authentication and database rules

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

no user groups or roles

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.