DBMS > Coveo vs. MySQL vs. searchxml vs. TinkerGraph

System Properties Comparison Coveo vs. MySQL vs. searchxml vs. TinkerGraph

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

Widely used open source RDBMS

DBMS for structured and unstructured content wrapped with an application server

A lightweight, in-memory graph engine that serves as a reference implementation of the TinkerPop3 API

Primary database model

Search engine

Relational DBMS

Key/Value like access via memcached API

Native XML DBMS
Search engine

Graph DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	2.28
Rank	#114	Overall
	#11	Search engines

Score	1083.74
Rank	#2	Overall
	#2	Relational DBMS

Score	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#7	Native XML DBMS
	#25	Search engines

Score	0.08
Rank	#348	Overall
	#35	Graph DBMS

Website

www.coveo.com

www.mysql.com

www.searchxml.net/category/products

tinkerpop.apache.org/docs/current/reference/#tinkergraph-gremlin

Technical documentation

docs.coveo.com

dev.mysql.com/doc

www.searchxml.net/support/handouts

Developer

Coveo

Oracle

since 2010, originally MySQL AB, then Sun

informationpartners gmbh

Initial release

2012

1995

2015

2009

Current release

8.4.0, April 2024

1.0

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

GPL version 2. Commercial licenses with extended functionallity are available

commercial

Open Source

Apache 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.

Aiven for MySQL: Fully managed MySQL, deployable in the cloud of your choice, with seamless integrations and lightning-fast setup.

Implementation language

C and C++

C++

Java

Server operating systems

hosted

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

Windows

Data scheme

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

yes

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

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

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

with proprietary extensions

APIs and other access methods

RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
Proprietary native API

RESTful HTTP API
WebDAV
XQuery
XSLT

TinkerPop 3

Supported programming languages

C#
Java
JavaScript
Python

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

C++

most other programming languages supported via APIs

Groovy
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

proprietary syntax

yes

on the application server

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

yes

horizontal partitioning, sharding with MySQL Cluster or MySQL Fabric

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

yes

sychronisation to multiple collections

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

none

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

not for MyISAM storage engine

yes

Relationships in graphs

Transaction concepts

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

yes

ACID

not for MyISAM storage engine

multiple readers, single writer

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

optional

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

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

no user groups or roles

Domain, group and role-based access control at the document level and for application services

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.