DBMS > FatDB vs. Graph Engine vs. Percona Server for MySQL vs. SQLite vs. Yaacomo

System Properties Comparison FatDB vs. Graph Engine vs. Percona Server for MySQL vs. SQLite vs. Yaacomo

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

FatDB/FatCloud has ceased operations as a company with February 2014. FatDB is discontinued and excluded from the ranking.

Yaacomo seems to be discontinued and is removed from the DB-Engines ranking

Description

A .NET NoSQL DBMS that can integrate with and extend SQL Server.

A distributed in-memory data processing engine, underpinned by a strongly-typed RAM store and a general distributed computation engine

Enhanced drop-in replacement for MySQL based on XtraDB or TokuDB storage engines with improved performance and additional diagnostic and management features.

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

OpenCL based in-memory RDBMS, designed for efficiently utilizing the hardware via parallel computing

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

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

Score	0.61
Rank	#240	Overall
	#21	Graph DBMS
	#35	Key-value stores

Score	2.03
Rank	#122	Overall
	#57	Relational DBMS

Score	114.32
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Website

www.graphengine.io

www.percona.com/software/mysql-database/percona-server

www.sqlite.org

yaacomo.com

Technical documentation

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

www.percona.com/downloads/Percona-Server-LATEST

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

Developer

FatCloud

Microsoft

Percona

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Q2WEB GmbH

Initial release

2012

2010

2008

2000

2009

Current release

8.0.36-28, 2024

3.45.3 (15 April 2024), April 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

MIT License

Open Source

GPL version 2

Open Source

Public Domain

commercial

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

.NET and C

C and C++

Server operating systems

Windows

.NET

Linux

server-less

Android
Linux
Windows

Data scheme

schema-free

yes

dynamic column types

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

not rigid because of 'dynamic typing' concept.

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.

yes

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

Via inetgration in SQL Server

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

yes

APIs and other access methods

.NET Client API
LINQ
RESTful HTTP API
RPC
Windows WCF Bindings

RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

Ada
C
C#
C++
D
Eiffel
Erlang
Haskell
Java
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scheme
Tcl

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

via applications

yes

Triggers

yes

via applications

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

horizontal partitioning

none

horizontal partitioning

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

selectable replication factor

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication
XtraDB Cluster

none

Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

via file-system locks

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

optional: either by committing a write-ahead log (WAL) to the local persistent storage or by dumping the memory to a persistent storage

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

Can implement custom security layer via applications

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

no user groups or roles

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.