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

System Properties Comparison Dgraph vs. FatDB vs. NuoDB 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

Distributed and scalable native Graph DBMS

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

NuoDB is a webscale distributed database that supports SQL and ACID transactions

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

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

Primary database model

Graph DBMS

Document store
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

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

Score	1.45
Rank	#156	Overall
	#15	Graph DBMS

Score	0.89
Rank	#198	Overall
	#92	Relational DBMS

Score	114.32
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Website

dgraph.io

www.3ds.com/nuodb-distributed-sql-database

www.sqlite.org

yaacomo.com

Technical documentation

dgraph.io/docs

doc.nuodb.com

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

Developer

Dgraph Labs, Inc.

FatCloud

Dassault Systèmes

originally NuoDB, Inc.

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Q2WEB GmbH

Initial release

2016

2012

2013

2000

2009

Current release

3.45.3 (15 April 2024), April 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache 2.0

commercial

limited edition free

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

C++

Server operating systems

Linux
OS X
Windows

Windows

hosted

Amazon EC2, Windows Azure, SoftLayer
Linux
OS X
Windows

server-less

Android
Linux
Windows

Data scheme

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

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

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

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

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

.Net
C
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript
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

via applications

Java, SQL

Triggers

yes

via applications

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

yes

Sharding

data is dynamically stored/cached on the nodes where it is read/written

none

horizontal partitioning

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Synchronous replication via Raft

selectable replication factor

yes

Managed transparently by NuoDB

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

tunable commit protocol

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

MVCC

yes

via file-system locks

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

In-memory capabilities

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

yes

Temporary table

yes

User concepts

Access control

Planned for future releases

Can implement custom security layer via applications

Standard SQL roles/ privileges, Administrative Users

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.