DBMS > EJDB vs. Graph Engine vs. mSQL vs. OpenQM vs. OrigoDB

System Properties Comparison EJDB vs. Graph Engine vs. mSQL vs. OpenQM vs. OrigoDB

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

mSQL (Mini SQL) is a simple and lightweight RDBMS

QpenQM is a high-performance, self-tuning, multi-value DBMS

A fully ACID in-memory object graph database

Primary database model

Document store

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Multivalue DBMS

Document store
Object oriented 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	1.27
Rank	#167	Overall
	#77	Relational DBMS

Score	0.27
Rank	#298	Overall
	#10	Multivalue DBMS

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

Website

github.com/Softmotions/ejdb

www.graphengine.io

hughestech.com.au/products/msql

www.rocketsoftware.com/products/rocket-multivalue-application-development-platform/rocket-open-qm

origodb.com

Technical documentation

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

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

origodb.com/docs

Developer

Softmotions

Microsoft

Hughes Technologies

Rocket Software, originally Martin Phillips

Robert Friberg et al

Initial release

2012

2010

1994

1993

2009

under the name LiveDB

Current release

4.4, October 2021

3.4-12

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

GPLv2

Open Source

MIT License

commercial

free licenses can be provided

Open Source

GPLv2, extended commercial license available

Open Source

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

Server operating systems

server-less

.NET

AIX
HP-UX
Linux
OS X
Solaris SPARC/x86
Windows

AIX
FreeBSD
Linux
macOS
Raspberry Pi
Solaris
Windows

Linux
Windows

Data scheme

schema-free

yes

with some exceptions

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

string, integer, double, bool, date, object_id

yes

User defined using .NET types and collections

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

can be achieved using .NET

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

A subset of ANSI SQL is implemented

no subqueries, aggregate functions, views, foreign keys, triggers

APIs and other access methods

in-process shared library

RESTful HTTP API

JDBC
ODBC

.NET Client API
HTTP API
LINQ

Supported programming languages

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

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

C
C++
Delphi
Java
Perl
PHP
Tcl

.Net
Basic
C
Java
Objective C
PHP
Python

.Net

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Triggers

yes

Domain Events

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

horizontal partitioning

none

yes

horizontal partitioning

client side managed; servers are not synchronized

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

yes

Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

none

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

typically not needed, however similar functionality with collection joins possible

depending on model

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

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

Write ahead log

In-memory capabilities

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

yes

User concepts

Access control

Access rights can be defined down to the item level

Role based authorization

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

Trinity
2 June 2023, Microsoft

Open source Microsoft Graph Engine takes on Neo4j
13 February 2017, InfoWorld

Aerospike Is Now a Graph Database, Too
21 June 2023, Datanami

IBM releases Graph, a service that can outperform SQL databases
27 July 2016, GeekWire

The graph analytics landscape 2019 - DataScienceCentral.com
27 February 2019, Data Science Central

provided by Google News

Higher Education PS rules out ghost students before PAC
29 November 2018, diggers.news

provided by Google News

Share this page