DBMS > Dragonfly vs. OrigoDB vs. Sequoiadb vs. Trafodion

System Properties Comparison Dragonfly vs. OrigoDB vs. Sequoiadb vs. Trafodion

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Apache Trafodion has been retired in 2021. Therefore it is excluded from the DB-Engines Ranking.

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

A fully ACID in-memory object graph database

NewSQL database with distributed OLTP and SQL

Transactional SQL-on-Hadoop DBMS

Primary database model

Key-value store

Document store
Object oriented DBMS

Document store
Relational DBMS

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	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#53	Document stores
	#20	Object oriented DBMS

Score	0.45
Rank	#261	Overall
	#41	Document stores
	#122	Relational DBMS

Website

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

origodb.com

www.sequoiadb.com

trafodion.apache.org

Technical documentation

www.dragonflydb.io/docs

origodb.com/docs

www.sequoiadb.com/en/index.php?m=Files&a=index

trafodion.apache.org/documentation.html

Developer

DragonflyDB team and community contributors

Robert Friberg et al

Sequoiadb Ltd.

Apache Software Foundation, originally developed by HP

Initial release

2023

2009

under the name LiveDB

2013

2014

Current release

1.0, March 2023

2.3.0, February 2019

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

BSL 1.1

Open Source

Server: AGPL; Client: Apache V2

Open Source

Apache 2.0

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++

C++, Java

Server operating systems

Linux

Linux
Windows

Linux

Data scheme

scheme-free

yes

schema-free

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

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

User defined using .NET types and collections

yes

oid, date, timestamp, binary, regex

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.

can be achieved using .NET

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like query language

yes

APIs and other access methods

Proprietary protocol

RESP - REdis Serialization Protocol

.NET Client API
HTTP API
LINQ

proprietary protocol using JSON

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

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

.Net
C++
Java
PHP
Python

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC/ADO.Net

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Lua

yes

JavaScript

Java Stored Procedures

Triggers

publish/subscribe channels provide some trigger functionality

yes

Domain Events

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

horizontal partitioning

client side managed; servers are not synchronized

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Source-replica replication

yes, via HBase

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

via user defined functions and HBase

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Eventual Consistency

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

depending on model

yes

Transaction concepts

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

Atomic execution of command blocks and scripts

ACID

Document is locked during a transaction

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes, strict serializability by the server

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

Write ahead log

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

Role based authorization

simple password-based access control

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.

Related products and services

We invite representatives of vendors of related products to contact us for presenting information about their offerings here.

More resources

Recent citations in the news

DragonflyDB Announces $21m in New Funding and General Availability
21 March 2023, Business Wire

DragonflyDB reels in $21M for its speedy in-memory database
21 March 2023, SiliconANGLE News

DragonflyDB Raises $21M in Funding
21 March 2023, FinSMEs

Dragonfly 1.0 Released For What Claims To Be The World's Fastest In-Memory Data Store
20 March 2023, Phoronix

Intel Linux Kernel Optimizations Show Huge Benefit For High Core Count Servers
29 March 2023, Phoronix

provided by Google News

Evaluating HTAP Databases for Machine Learning Applications
2 November 2016, KDnuggets

HP Throws Trafodion Hat into OLTP Hadoop Ring
14 July 2014, Datanami

Low-latency, distributed database architectures are critical for emerging fog applications
7 April 2022, Embedded Computing Design

provided by Google News

Share this page