DBMS > Datomic vs. Dgraph vs. FatDB vs. SQLite vs. Yaacomo

System Properties Comparison Datomic vs. Dgraph vs. FatDB vs. SQLite vs. Yaacomo

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

FatDB/FatCloud has ceased operations as a company with February 2014. FatDB is discontinued and excluded from the ranking.

Yaacomo seems to be discontinued and is removed from the DB-Engines ranking

Description

Datomic builds on immutable values, supports point-in-time queries and uses 3rd party systems for durability

Distributed and scalable native Graph DBMS

A .NET NoSQL DBMS that can integrate with and extend SQL Server.

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

OpenCL based in-memory RDBMS, designed for efficiently utilizing the hardware via parallel computing

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Graph DBMS

Document store
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

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

Score	1.59
Rank	#150	Overall
	#69	Relational DBMS

Score	1.45
Rank	#156	Overall
	#15	Graph DBMS

Score	114.32
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Website

www.datomic.com

dgraph.io

www.sqlite.org

yaacomo.com

Technical documentation

docs.datomic.com

dgraph.io/docs

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

Developer

Cognitect

Dgraph Labs, Inc.

FatCloud

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Q2WEB GmbH

Initial release

2012

2016

2012

2000

2009

Current release

1.0.6735, June 2023

3.45.3 (15 April 2024), April 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

limited edition free

Open Source

Apache 2.0

commercial

Open Source

Public Domain

commercial

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

Java, Clojure

Server operating systems

All OS with a Java VM

Linux
OS X
Windows

Windows

server-less

Android
Linux
Windows

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

yes

dynamic column types

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

not rigid because of 'dynamic typing' concept.

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.

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

Via inetgration in SQL Server

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

yes

APIs and other access methods

RESTful HTTP API

GraphQL query language
gRPC (using protocol buffers) API
HTTP API

.NET Client API
LINQ
RESTful HTTP API
RPC
Windows WCF Bindings

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

Clojure
Java

C#
C++
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

Transaction Functions

yes

via applications

Triggers

By using transaction functions

yes

via applications

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

But extensive use of caching in the application peers

yes

Sharding

none

horizontal partitioning

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

But extensive use of caching in the application peers

Synchronous replication via Raft

selectable replication factor

none

Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

via file-system locks

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

using external storage systems (e.g. Cassandra, DynamoDB, PostgreSQL, Couchbase and others)

yes

In-memory capabilities

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

yes

recommended only for testing and development

yes

User concepts

Access control

Planned for future releases

Can implement custom security layer via applications

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.