DBMS > EJDB vs. mSQL vs. OrigoDB vs. RavenDB vs. TempoIQ

System Properties Comparison EJDB vs. mSQL vs. OrigoDB vs. RavenDB vs. TempoIQ

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

TempoIQ seems to be decommissioned. It will be removed from the DB-Engines ranking.

Description

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

mSQL (Mini SQL) is a simple and lightweight RDBMS

A fully ACID in-memory object graph database

Open Source Operational and Transactional Enterprise NoSQL Document Database

Scalable analytics DBMS for sensor data, provided as a service (SaaS)

Primary database model

Document store

Relational DBMS

Document store
Object oriented DBMS

Document store

Time Series DBMS

Secondary database models

Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS
Time Series DBMS

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

Score	0.27
Rank	#297	Overall
	#44	Document stores

Score	1.27
Rank	#167	Overall
	#77	Relational DBMS

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

Score	2.92
Rank	#101	Overall
	#18	Document stores

Website

github.com/Softmotions/ejdb

hughestech.com.au/products/msql

origodb.com

ravendb.net

tempoiq.com (offline)

Technical documentation

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

origodb.com/docs

ravendb.net/docs

Developer

Softmotions

Hughes Technologies

Robert Friberg et al

Hibernating Rhinos

TempoIQ

Initial release

2012

1994

2009

under the name LiveDB

2010

2012

Current release

4.4, October 2021

5.4, July 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

GPLv2

commercial

free licenses can be provided

Open Source

AGPL version 3, commercial license available

commercial

Cloud-based only

Only available as a cloud service

yes

DBaaS offerings (sponsored links)

Database as a Service

Providers of DBaaS offerings, please contact us to be listed.

Implementation language

Server operating systems

server-less

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

Linux
Windows

Linux
macOS
Raspberry Pi
Windows

Data scheme

schema-free

yes

schema-free

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

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

A subset of ANSI SQL is implemented

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

SQL-like query language (RQL)

APIs and other access methods

in-process shared library

JDBC
ODBC

.NET Client API
HTTP API
LINQ

.NET Client API
F# Client API
Go Client API
Java Client API
NodeJS Client API
PHP Client API
Python Client API
RESTful HTTP API

HTTP API

Supported programming languages

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

C
C++
Delphi
Java
Perl
PHP
Tcl

.Net

.Net
C#
F#
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
Ruby

C#
Java
JavaScript

Node.js
Python
Ruby

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Triggers

yes

Domain Events

yes

Realtime Alerts

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

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

none

Default ACID transactions on the local node (eventually consistent across the cluster). Atomic operations with cluster-wide ACID transactions. Eventual consistency for indexes and full-text search indexes.

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

ACID, Cluster-wide transaction available

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Read/Write Locking

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

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

User concepts

Access control

Role based authorization

Authorization levels configured per client per database

simple authentication-based 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.

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

Writing a Web Service in Perl
9 July 2003, PCQuest

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

provided by Google News

RavenDB Welcomes David Baruc as Chief Revenue Officer: Seasoned Tech Leader to Drive Global Sales and ...
13 June 2023, PR Newswire

Install the NoSQL RavenDB Data System
14 May 2021, The New Stack

Oren Eini on RavenDB, Including Consistency Guarantees and C# as the Implementation Language
23 May 2022, InfoQ.com

RavenDB Adds Graph Queries
15 May 2019, Datanami

How I Created a RavenDB Python Client
23 September 2016, Visual Studio Magazine

provided by Google News

Share this page