DBMS > Dgraph vs. Google Cloud Bigtable vs. ScyllaDB vs. SQLite

System Properties Comparison Dgraph vs. Google Cloud Bigtable vs. ScyllaDB vs. SQLite

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

Distributed and scalable native Graph DBMS

Google's NoSQL Big Data database service. It's the same database that powers many core Google services, including Search, Analytics, Maps, and Gmail.

Cassandra and DynamoDB compatible wide column store

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

Primary database model

Graph DBMS

Key-value store
Wide column store

Wide column store

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Key-value store

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

Score	1.45
Rank	#156	Overall
	#15	Graph DBMS

Score	3.26
Rank	#92	Overall
	#13	Key-value stores
	#8	Wide column stores

Score	4.75
Rank	#68	Overall
	#5	Wide column stores

Score	114.32
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Website

dgraph.io

cloud.google.com/bigtable

www.scylladb.com

www.sqlite.org

Technical documentation

dgraph.io/docs

cloud.google.com/bigtable/docs

docs.scylladb.com

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

Developer

Dgraph Labs, Inc.

Google

ScyllaDB

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Initial release

2016

2015

2000

Current release

ScyllaDB Open Source 5.4.1, January 2024

3.45.3 (15 April 2024), April 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache 2.0

commercial

Open Source

Open Source (AGPL), 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.

Scylla Cloud: Create real-time applications that run at global scale with Scylla Cloud, the industry’s most powerful NoSQL DBaaS

Implementation language

C++

Server operating systems

Linux
OS X
Windows

hosted

Linux

server-less

Data scheme

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

cluster global secondary indices

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like DML and DDL statements (CQL)

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

APIs and other access methods

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

gRPC (using protocol buffers) API
HappyBase (Python library)
HBase compatible API (Java)

Proprietary protocol (CQL)

compatible with CQL (Cassandra Query Language, an SQL-like language)
RESTful HTTP API (DynamoDB compatible)
Thrift

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

Supported programming languages

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

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

For CQL interface: C#, C++, Clojure, Erlang, Go, Haskell, Java, JavaScript, Node.js, Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby, Rust, Scala
For DynamoDB interface: .Net, ColdFusion, Erlang, Groovy, Java, JavaScript, Perl, 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, Lua

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

yes

Sharding

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Synchronous replication via Raft

Internal replication in Colossus, and regional replication between two clusters in different zones

selectable replication factor

Representation of geographical distribution of servers is possible

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Immediate consistency (for a single cluster), Eventual consistency (for two or more replicated clusters)

Eventual Consistency
Tunable Consistency

can be individually decided for each write operation

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Atomic single-row operations

Atomicity and isolation are supported for single operations

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

via file-system locks

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

in-memory tables

yes

User concepts

Access control

Planned for future releases

Access rights for users, groups and roles based on Google Cloud Identity and Access Management (IAM)

Access rights for users can be defined per object

More information provided by the system vendor

Specific characteristics

ScyllaDB is engineered to deliver predictable performance at scale. It’s adopted...
» more

Competitive advantages

Highly-performant (efficiently utilizes full resources of a node and network; millions...
» more

Typical application scenarios

ScyllaDB is ideal for applications that require high throughput and low latency at...
» more

Key customers

Discord, Epic Games, Expedia, Zillow, Comcast, Disney+ Hotstar, Samsung, ShareChat,...
» more

Market metrics

ScyllaDB typically offers ~75% total cost of ownership savings, with ~5X higher throughput...
» more

Licensing and pricing models

ScyllaDB Open Source - free open source software (AGPL) ScyllaDB Enterprise - subscription-based...
» more

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.