DBMS > EJDB vs. Graph Engine vs. Heroic vs. MySQL

System Properties Comparison EJDB vs. Graph Engine vs. Heroic vs. MySQL

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

Embeddable document-store database library with JSON representation of queries (in MongoDB style)

A distributed in-memory data processing engine, underpinned by a strongly-typed RAM store and a general distributed computation engine

Time Series DBMS built at Spotify based on Cassandra or Google Cloud Bigtable, and ElasticSearch

Widely used open source RDBMS

Primary database model

Document store

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

Time Series DBMS

Relational DBMS

Key/Value like access via memcached API

Secondary database models

Document store
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	0.27
Rank	#297	Overall
	#44	Document stores

Score	0.61
Rank	#240	Overall
	#21	Graph DBMS
	#35	Key-value stores

Score	0.51
Rank	#255	Overall
	#21	Time Series DBMS

Score	1083.74
Rank	#2	Overall
	#2	Relational DBMS

Website

github.com/Softmotions/ejdb

www.graphengine.io

github.com/spotify/heroic

www.mysql.com

Technical documentation

github.com/Softmotions/ejdb/blob/master/README.md

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

spotify.github.io/heroic

dev.mysql.com/doc

Developer

Softmotions

Microsoft

Spotify

Oracle

since 2010, originally MySQL AB, then Sun

Initial release

2012

2010

2014

1995

Current release

8.4.0, April 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

GPLv2

Open Source

MIT License

Open Source

Apache 2.0

Open Source

GPL version 2. Commercial licenses with extended functionallity are available

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.

Aiven for MySQL: Fully managed MySQL, deployable in the cloud of your choice, with seamless integrations and lightning-fast setup.

Implementation language

.NET and C

Java

C and C++

Server operating systems

server-less

.NET

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

Data scheme

schema-free

yes

schema-free

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

string, integer, double, bool, date, object_id

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

via Elasticsearch

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

with proprietary extensions

APIs and other access methods

in-process shared library

RESTful HTTP API

HQL (Heroic Query Language, a JSON-based language)
HTTP API

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
Proprietary native API

Supported programming languages

Actionscript
C
C#
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Lua
Objective-C
Pike
Python
Ruby

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

Ada
C
C#
C++
D
Delphi
Eiffel
Erlang
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scheme
Tcl

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

proprietary syntax

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

horizontal partitioning

Sharding

horizontal partitioning, sharding with MySQL Cluster or MySQL Fabric

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

yes

Multi-source replication
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

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

typically not needed, however similar functionality with collection joins possible

yes

not for MyISAM storage engine

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

not for MyISAM storage engine

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Read/Write Locking

yes

table locks or row locks depending on storage engine

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

optional: either by committing a write-ahead log (WAL) to the local persistent storage or by dumping the memory to a persistent storage

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

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

no user groups or roles

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.