DBMS > DuckDB vs. OpenEdge vs. Oracle NoSQL vs. VelocityDB

System Properties Comparison DuckDB vs. OpenEdge vs. Oracle NoSQL vs. VelocityDB

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

An embeddable, in-process, column-oriented SQL OLAP RDBMS

Application development environment with integrated database management system

A multi-model, scalable, distributed NoSQL database, designed to provide highly reliable, flexible, and available data management across a configurable set of storage nodes

A .NET Object Database that can be embedded/distributed and extended to a graph data model (VelocityGraph)

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Document store
Key-value store
Relational DBMS

Graph DBMS
Object oriented DBMS

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

Score	4.57
Rank	#74	Overall
	#40	Relational DBMS

Score	3.51
Rank	#86	Overall
	#46	Relational DBMS

Score	2.95
Rank	#100	Overall
	#17	Document stores
	#17	Key-value stores
	#50	Relational DBMS

Score	0.05
Rank	#358	Overall
	#36	Graph DBMS
	#16	Object oriented DBMS

Website

duckdb.org

www.progress.com/openedge

www.oracle.com/database/nosql/technologies/nosql

velocitydb.com

Technical documentation

duckdb.org/docs

documentation.progress.com/output/ua/OpenEdge_latest

docs.oracle.com/en/database/other-databases/nosql-database/index.html

velocitydb.com/UserGuide

Developer

Progress Software Corporation

Oracle

VelocityDB Inc

Initial release

2018

1984

2011

Current release

0.10, February 2024

OpenEdge 12.2, March 2020

23.3, December 2023

7.x

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

MIT License

commercial

Open Source

Proprietary for Enterprise Edition (Oracle Database EE license has Oracle NoSQL database EE covered: details)

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++

Java

Server operating systems

server-less

AIX
HP-UX
Linux
Solaris
Windows

Linux
Solaris SPARC/x86

Any that supports .NET

Data scheme

yes

Support Fixed schema and Schema-less deployment with the ability to interoperate between them.

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

optional

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

yes

close to SQL 92

SQL-like DML and DDL statements

APIs and other access methods

Arrow Database Connectivity (ADBC)
CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

JDBC
ODBC

RESTful HTTP API

.Net

Supported programming languages

C
C#

3rd party driver
C++
Crystal

3rd party driver
Go

3rd party driver
Java
Lisp

3rd party driver
Python
R
Ruby

3rd party driver
Rust
Swift
Zig

3rd party driver

Progress proprietary ABL (Advanced Business Language)

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

.Net

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Triggers

yes

Callbacks are triggered when data changes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

horizontal partitioning

since Version 11.4

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

Source-replica replication

Electable source-replica replication per shard. Support distributed global deployment with Multi-region table feature

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

with Hadoop integration

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

depending on configuration

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

configurable

ACID within a storage node (=shard)

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes, multi-version concurrency control (MVCC)

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

off heap cache

yes

User concepts

Access control

Users and groups

Access rights for users and roles

Based on Windows Authentication

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

My First Billion (of Rows) in DuckDB | by João Pedro | May, 2024
1 May 2024, Towards Data Science

Enabling Remote Query Execution through DuckDB Extensions
12 March 2024, InfoQ.com

DuckDB Walks to the Beat of Its Own Analytics Drum
5 March 2024, Datanami

MotherDuck Raises $52.5 Million Series B Funding as DuckDB Adoption Soars
20 September 2023, PR Newswire

Seattle startup MotherDuck raises $52.5M at a $400M valuation to fuel DuckDB analytics platform
20 September 2023, GeekWire

provided by Google News

OpenEdge Application Development | Progress OpenEdge
14 September 2014, Progress Software

What's New in OpenEdge 12.8
15 April 2024, release.nl

PoC Exploit Released for OpenEdge Authentication Gateway & AdminServer Vulnerability
11 March 2024, GBHackers

provided by Google News

Enhance enterprise data security and trust: Must see Blockchain Technology sessions at Oracle CloudWorld 2023
21 August 2023, Oracle

We built a geo-distributed, serverless modern app using the Oracle NoSQL Database Cloud Service
18 November 2021, Oracle

Oracle Beefs Up Its NoSQL Database Offering
3 April 2014, Data Center Knowledge

Oracle Defends Relational DBs Against NoSQL Competitors
25 November 2015, eWeek

Larry Ellison Just Embraced the Enemy. Or Did He?
1 October 2012, WIRED

provided by Google News

Share this page