DBMS > EJDB vs. TinkerGraph

System Properties Comparison EJDB vs. TinkerGraph

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Our visitors often compare EJDB and TinkerGraph with PostgreSQL, SQLite and MongoDB.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

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

A lightweight, in-memory graph engine that serves as a reference implementation of the TinkerPop3 API

Primary database model

Document store

Graph DBMS

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

Score	0.13
Rank	#331	Overall
	#46	Document stores

Score	0.08
Rank	#345	Overall
	#34	Graph DBMS

Website

github.com/Softmotions/ejdb

tinkerpop.apache.org/docs/current/reference/#tinkergraph-gremlin

Technical documentation

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

Developer

Softmotions

Initial release

2012

2009

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

GPLv2

Open Source

Apache 2.0

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

Java

Server operating systems

server-less

Data scheme

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

string, integer, double, bool, date, object_id

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

SQL

Support of SQL

APIs and other access methods

in-process shared library

TinkerPop 3

Supported programming languages

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

Groovy
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Triggers

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

none

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

typically not needed, however similar functionality with collection joins possible

yes

Relationships in graphs

Transaction concepts

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

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Read/Write Locking

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

optional

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.

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

Unit testing Apache TinkerPop transactions: From TinkerGraph to Amazon Neptune
3 June 2024, AWS Blog

Simple Deployment of a Graph Database: JanusGraph
12 October 2020, Towards Data Science

Introducing Gremlin query hints for Amazon Neptune
26 February 2019, AWS Blog

provided by Google News

Share this page