DBMS > EJDB vs. Lovefield vs. OrigoDB vs. Sequoiadb vs. Vitess

System Properties Comparison EJDB vs. Lovefield vs. OrigoDB vs. Sequoiadb vs. Vitess

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

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

Embeddable relational database for web apps written in pure JavaScript

A fully ACID in-memory object graph database

NewSQL database with distributed OLTP and SQL

Scalable, distributed, cloud-native DBMS, extending MySQL

Primary database model

Document store

Relational DBMS

Document store
Object oriented DBMS

Document store
Relational DBMS

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	0.31
Rank	#296	Overall
	#44	Document stores

Score	0.33
Rank	#286	Overall
	#131	Relational DBMS

Score	0.06
Rank	#380	Overall
	#50	Document stores
	#18	Object oriented DBMS

Score	0.50
Rank	#258	Overall
	#41	Document stores
	#120	Relational DBMS

Score	0.88
Rank	#203	Overall
	#95	Relational DBMS

Website

github.com/Softmotions/ejdb

google.github.io/lovefield

origodb.com

www.sequoiadb.com

vitess.io

Technical documentation

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

github.com/google/lovefield/blob/master/docs/spec_index.md

origodb.com/docs

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

vitess.io/docs

Developer

Softmotions

Google

Robert Friberg et al

Sequoiadb Ltd.

The Linux Foundation, PlanetScale

Initial release

2012

2014

2009

under the name LiveDB

2013

Current release

2.1.12, February 2017

15.0.2, December 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

GPLv2

Open Source

Apache 2.0

Open Source

Server: AGPL; Client: Apache V2

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0, commercial licenses 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.

Implementation language

JavaScript

C++

Server operating systems

server-less

server-less, requires a JavaScript environment (browser, Node.js)

tested with Chrome, Firefox, IE, Safari

Linux
Windows

Linux

Docker
Linux
macOS

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

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

via JavaScript builder pattern

SQL-like query language

yes

with proprietary extensions

APIs and other access methods

in-process shared library

.NET Client API
HTTP API
LINQ

proprietary protocol using JSON

ADO.NET
JDBC
MySQL protocol
ODBC

Supported programming languages

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

JavaScript

.Net

.Net
C++
Java
PHP
Python

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

JavaScript

yes

proprietary syntax

Triggers

Using read-only observers

yes

Domain Events

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

horizontal partitioning

client side managed; servers are not synchronized

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

Source-replica replication

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

Eventual Consistency across shards
Immediate Consistency within a shard

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

typically not needed, however similar functionality with collection joins possible

yes

depending on model

yes

not for MyISAM storage engine

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Document is locked during a transaction

ACID at shard level

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

yes, by using IndexedDB or the cloud service Firebase Realtime Database

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

using MemoryDB

yes

User concepts

Access control

Role based authorization

simple password-based 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.

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

PlanetScale Unveils Distributed MySQL Database Service Based on Vitess
18 May 2021, Datanami

They scaled YouTube -- now they’ll shard everyone with PlanetScale
13 December 2018, TechCrunch

PlanetScale Serves up Vitess-Powered Serverless MySQL
23 November 2021, The New Stack

PlanetScale offers undo button to reverse schema migration without losing data
24 March 2022, The Register

Massively Scaling MySQL Using Vitess
19 February 2019, InfoQ.com

provided by Google News

Share this page