DBMS > EJDB vs. Pinecone vs. RavenDB vs. SAP HANA vs. Transbase

System Properties Comparison EJDB vs. Pinecone vs. RavenDB vs. SAP HANA vs. Transbase

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

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

A managed, cloud-native vector database

Open Source Operational and Transactional Enterprise NoSQL Document Database

In-memory, column based data store. Available as appliance or cloud service

A resource-optimized, high-performance, universally applicable RDBMS

Primary database model

Secondary database models

Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS
Time Series DBMS

Document store
Graph DBMS

with SAP Hana, Enterprise Edition
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	0.31
Rank	#296	Overall
	#44	Document stores

Score	3.23
Rank	#92	Overall
	#3	Vector DBMS

Score	2.84
Rank	#101	Overall
	#18	Document stores

Score	44.27
Rank	#23	Overall
	#16	Relational DBMS

Score	0.17
Rank	#334	Overall
	#148	Relational DBMS

Website

github.com/Softmotions/ejdb

www.pinecone.io

ravendb.net

www.sap.com/products/hana.html

www.transaction.de/en/products/transbase.html

Technical documentation

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

docs.pinecone.io/docs/overview

ravendb.net/docs

help.sap.com/hana

www.transaction.de/en/products/transbase/features.html

Developer

Softmotions

Pinecone Systems, Inc

Hibernating Rhinos

SAP

Transaction Software GmbH

Initial release

2012

2019

2010

1987

Current release

5.4, July 2022

2.0 SPS07 (April 4, 2023), April 2023

Transbase 8.3, 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

GPLv2

commercial

Open Source

AGPL version 3, commercial license available

commercial

free development license

Cloud-based only

Only available as a cloud service

yes

also available as a cloud based service

DBaaS offerings (sponsored links)

Database as a Service

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

Implementation language

C and C++

Server operating systems

server-less

hosted

Linux
macOS
Raspberry Pi
Windows

Appliance or cloud-service

FreeBSD
Linux
macOS
Solaris
Windows

Data scheme

schema-free

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

string, integer, double, bool, date, object_id

String, Number, Boolean

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.

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like query language (RQL)

yes

APIs and other access methods

in-process shared library

RESTful HTTP API

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

JDBC
ODBC

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

Python

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

C
C#
C++
Java
JavaScript
Kotlin
Objective-C
PHP
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

SQLScript, R

yes

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

Sharding

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

Multi-source replication

yes

Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

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.

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, Cluster-wide transaction available

ACID

yes

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Read/Write Locking

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

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

Authorization levels configured per client per database

yes

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

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.