DBMS > Coveo vs. LevelDB vs. RavenDB vs. SQLite

System Properties Comparison Coveo vs. LevelDB vs. RavenDB vs. SQLite

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

Embeddable fast key-value storage library that provides an ordered mapping from string keys to string values

Open Source Operational and Transactional Enterprise NoSQL Document Database

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

Primary database model

Secondary database models

Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS
Time Series DBMS

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

Score	2.11
Rank	#118	Overall
	#11	Search engines

Score	2.25
Rank	#115	Overall
	#19	Key-value stores

Score	2.84
Rank	#101	Overall
	#18	Document stores

Score	111.41
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Website

www.coveo.com

github.com/google/leveldb

ravendb.net

www.sqlite.org

Technical documentation

docs.coveo.com

github.com/google/leveldb/blob/main/doc/index.md

ravendb.net/docs

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

Developer

Coveo

Google

Hibernating Rhinos

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Initial release

2012

2011

2010

2000

Current release

1.23, February 2021

5.4, July 2022

3.46.0 (23 May 2024), May 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

BSD

Open Source

AGPL version 3, commercial license available

Open Source

Public Domain

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++

Server operating systems

hosted

Illumos
Linux
OS X
Windows

Linux
macOS
Raspberry Pi
Windows

server-less

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

dynamic column types

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

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.

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like query language (RQL)

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

APIs and other access methods

RESTful HTTP API

.NET Client API
F# Client API
Go Client API
Java Client API
NodeJS Client API
PHP Client API
Python Client API
RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

Supported programming languages

C#
Java
JavaScript
Python

C++
Go
Java

3rd party binding
JavaScript (Node.js)

3rd party binding
Python

3rd party binding

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

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

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

yes

none

Sharding

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

none

Multi-source 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

Default ACID transactions on the local node (eventually consistent across the cluster). Atomic operations with cluster-wide ACID transactions. Eventual consistency for indexes and full-text search indexes.

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

yes

ACID, Cluster-wide transaction available

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

via file-system locks

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

with automatic compression on writes

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

granular access controls, API key management, content filters

Authorization levels configured per client per database

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.