DBMS > EJDB vs. Graph Engine vs. Hypertable vs. SQLite

System Properties Comparison EJDB vs. Graph Engine vs. Hypertable vs. SQLite

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Hypertable has stopped its further development with March 2016 and is removed from the DB-Engines ranking.

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

An open source BigTable implementation based on distributed file systems such as Hadoop

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

Primary database model

Document store

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

Wide column store

Relational 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	114.32
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Website

github.com/Softmotions/ejdb

www.graphengine.io

www.sqlite.org

Technical documentation

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

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

Developer

Softmotions

Microsoft

Hypertable Inc.

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Initial release

2012

2010

2009

2000

Current release

0.9.8.11, March 2016

3.45.3 (15 April 2024), April 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

GPLv2

Open Source

MIT License

Open Source

GNU version 3. Commercial license available

Open Source

Public Domain

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

.NET and C

C++

Server operating systems

server-less

.NET

Linux
OS X
Windows

an inofficial Windows port is available

server-less

Data scheme

schema-free

yes

schema-free

yes

dynamic column types

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

string, integer, double, bool, date, object_id

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

restricted

only exact value or prefix value scans

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

APIs and other access methods

in-process shared library

RESTful HTTP API

C++ API
Thrift

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

Supported programming languages

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

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

C++
Java
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

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

horizontal partitioning

Sharding

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

selectable replication factor on file system level

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

typically not needed, however similar functionality with collection joins possible

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Read/Write Locking

yes

via file-system locks

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

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.