DBMS > Dragonfly vs. HarperDB vs. SQLite vs. Transbase

System Properties Comparison Dragonfly vs. HarperDB vs. SQLite vs. Transbase

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

A drop-in Redis replacement that scales vertically to support millions of operations per second and terabyte sized workloads, all on a single instance

Ultra-low latency distributed database with an intuitive REST API supporting NoSQL and SQL (including joins). Deployment of functions and databases simultaneously with a consolidated node-level architecture.

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

A resource-optimized, high-performance, universally applicable RDBMS

Primary database model

Key-value store

Document store

Relational DBMS

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

Score	0.41
Rank	#266	Overall
	#38	Key-value stores

Score	0.55
Rank	#248	Overall
	#38	Document stores

Score	114.32
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Score	0.11
Rank	#341	Overall
	#150	Relational DBMS

Website

github.com/dragonflydb/dragonfly
www.dragonflydb.io

www.harperdb.io

www.sqlite.org

www.transaction.de/en/products/transbase.html

Technical documentation

www.dragonflydb.io/docs

docs.harperdb.io/docs

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

www.transaction.de/en/products/transbase/features.html

Developer

DragonflyDB team and community contributors

HarperDB

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Transaction Software GmbH

Initial release

2023

2017

2000

1987

Current release

1.0, March 2023

3.1, August 2021

3.45.3 (15 April 2024), April 2024

Transbase 8.3, 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

BSL 1.1

commercial

free community edition available

Open Source

Public Domain

commercial

free development license

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++

Node.js

C and C++

Server operating systems

Linux

Linux
OS X

server-less

FreeBSD
Linux
macOS
Solaris
Windows

Data scheme

scheme-free

dynamic schema

yes

dynamic column types

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

strings, hashes, lists, sets, sorted sets, bit arrays

yes

JSON data types

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

SQL-like data manipulation statements

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

yes

APIs and other access methods

Proprietary protocol

RESP - REdis Serialization Protocol

JDBC
ODBC
React Hooks
RESTful HTTP/JSON API
WebSocket

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
Proprietary native API

Supported programming languages

C
C#
C++
Clojure
D
Dart
Elixir
Erlang
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Lisp
Lua
Objective-C
Perl
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Rust
Scala
Swift
Tcl

.Net
C
C#
C++
ColdFusion
D
Dart
Delphi
Erlang
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Lisp
MatLab
Objective C
Perl
PHP
PowerShell
Prolog
Python
R
Ruby
Rust
Scala
Swift

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++
Java
JavaScript
Kotlin
Objective-C
PHP
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Lua

Custom Functions

since release 3.1

yes

Triggers

publish/subscribe channels provide some trigger functionality

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

A table resides as a whole on one (or more) nodes in a cluster

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Source-replica replication

yes

the nodes on which a table resides can be defined

none

Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Eventual Consistency

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

Atomic execution of command blocks and scripts

Atomic execution of specific operations

ACID

yes

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes, strict serializability by the server

yes

via file-system locks

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

yes, using LMDB

yes

In-memory capabilities

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

yes

User concepts

Access control

Password-based authentication

Access rights for users and roles

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.