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

System Properties Comparison Dgraph vs. FatDB vs. SQLite vs. Tibero 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.

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

A secure RDBMS, designed for easy portability from Oracle

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	1.48
Rank	#158	Overall
	#15	Graph DBMS

Score	116.01
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Score	1.81
Rank	#143	Overall
	#65	Relational DBMS

Website

dgraph.io

www.sqlite.org

us.tmaxsoft.com/products/tibero

yaacomo.com

Technical documentation

dgraph.io/docs

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

technet.tmaxsoft.com/upload/download/online/tibero/pver-20150504-000002/index.html

Developer

Dgraph Labs, Inc.

FatCloud

Dwayne Richard Hipp

TmaxSoft

Q2WEB GmbH

Initial release

2016

2012

2000

2003

2009

Current release

3.45.2 (12 March 2024), March 2024

6, April 2015

License

Commercial or Open Source

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

C and Assembler

Server operating systems

Linux
OS X
Windows

Windows

server-less

AIX
HP-UX
Linux
Solaris
Windows

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.

yes

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

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

JDBC
ODBC
ODP.NET
Oracle Call Interface (OCI)
Tibero CLI

JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

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

C
C#
C++
Cobol
Java
Objective-C
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby
Visual Basic

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

via applications

Persistent Stored Procedure (PSM)

Triggers

yes

via applications

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

yes

Sharding

none

horizontal partitioning

by range, hash, list or composite

horizontal partitioning

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Synchronous replication via Raft

selectable replication factor

none

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

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

In-memory capabilities

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

yes

planned for next version

yes

User concepts

Access control

Planned for future releases

Can implement custom security layer via applications

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard (SQL 92, SQL 99)

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.