DBMS > Faircom DB vs. HarperDB vs. Memcached vs. SQLite

System Properties Comparison Faircom DB vs. HarperDB vs. Memcached vs. SQLite

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

Native high-speed multi-model DBMS for relational and key-value store data simultaneously accessible through SQL and NoSQL APIs.

Ultra-low latency distributed database with an intuitive REST API supporting NoSQL and SQL (including joins). Deployment of functions and databases simultaneously with a consolidated node-level architecture.

In-memory key-value store, originally intended for caching

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

Primary database model

Key-value store
Relational DBMS

Document store

Key-value store

Relational DBMS

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

Score	0.20
Rank	#318	Overall
	#48	Key-value stores
	#141	Relational DBMS

Score	0.55
Rank	#248	Overall
	#38	Document stores

Score	19.42
Rank	#32	Overall
	#4	Key-value stores

Score	114.32
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Website

www.faircom.com/products/faircom-db

www.harperdb.io

www.memcached.org

www.sqlite.org

Technical documentation

docs.faircom.com/docs/en/UUID-7446ae34-a1a7-c843-c894-d5322e395184.html

docs.harperdb.io/docs

github.com/memcached/memcached/wiki

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

Developer

FairCom Corporation

HarperDB

Danga Interactive

originally developed by Brad Fitzpatrick for LiveJournal

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Initial release

1979

2017

2003

2000

Current release

V12, November 2020

3.1, August 2021

1.6.25, March 2024

3.45.3 (15 April 2024), April 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Restricted, free version available

commercial

free community edition available

Open Source

BSD license

Open Source

Public Domain

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

ANSI C, C++

Node.js

Server operating systems

AIX
FreeBSD
HP-UX
Linux
NetBSD
OS X
QNX
SCO
Solaris
VxWorks
Windows

easily portable to other OSs

Linux
OS X

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X
Unix
Windows

server-less

Data scheme

schema free, schema optional, schema required, partial schema,

dynamic schema

schema-free

yes

dynamic column types

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes, ANSI SQL Types, JSON, typed binary structures

yes

JSON data types

yes

not rigid because of 'dynamic typing' concept.

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

yes, ANSI SQL with proprietary extensions

SQL-like data manipulation statements

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

APIs and other access methods

ADO.NET
Direct SQL
JDBC
JPA
ODBC
RESTful HTTP/JSON API
RESTful MQTT/JSON API
RPC

JDBC
ODBC
React Hooks
RESTful HTTP/JSON API
WebSocket

Proprietary protocol

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

Supported programming languages

.Net
C
C#
C++
Java
JavaScript (Node.js and browser)
PHP
Python
Visual Basic

.Net
C
C#
C++
ColdFusion
D
Dart
Delphi
Erlang
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Lisp
MatLab
Objective C
Perl
PHP
PowerShell
Prolog
Python
R
Ruby
Rust
Scala
Swift

.Net
C
C++
ColdFusion
Erlang
Java
Lisp
Lua
OCaml
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby

Actionscript
Ada
Basic
C
C#
C++
D
Delphi
Forth
Fortran
Haskell
Java
JavaScript
Lisp
Lua
MatLab
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
PL/SQL
Python
R
Ruby
Scala
Scheme
Smalltalk
Tcl

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

.Net, JavaScript, C/C++

Custom Functions

since release 3.1

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

File partitioning, horizontal partitioning, sharding

Customizable business rules for table partitioning

A table resides as a whole on one (or more) nodes in a cluster

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes, configurable to be parallel or serial, synchronous or asynchronous, uni-directional or bi-directional, ACID-consistent or eventually consistent (with custom conflict resolution).

yes

the nodes on which a table resides can be defined

none

Repcached, a Memcached patch, provides this functionallity

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency
Tunable consistency per server, database, table, and transaction

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

tunable from ACID to Eventually Consistent

Atomic execution of specific operations

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

via file-system locks

Durability

Support for making data persistent

Yes, tunable from durable to delayed durability to in-memory

yes, using LMDB

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

Fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard with additional protections for files

Access rights for users and roles

yes

using SASL (Simple Authentication and Security Layer) protocol

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.