DBMS > FatDB vs. Lovefield vs. Oracle Coherence vs. SQLite vs. Valentina Server

System Properties Comparison FatDB vs. Lovefield vs. Oracle Coherence vs. SQLite vs. Valentina Server

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.

Description

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

Embeddable relational database for web apps written in pure JavaScript

Oracles in-memory data grid solution

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

Object-relational database and reports server

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Key-value store

Relational DBMS

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

Score	0.32
Rank	#290	Overall
	#132	Relational DBMS

Score	2.02
Rank	#131	Overall
	#22	Key-value stores

Score	116.01
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Score	0.18
Rank	#329	Overall
	#144	Relational DBMS

Website

google.github.io/lovefield

www.oracle.com/java/coherence

www.sqlite.org

www.valentina-db.net

Technical documentation

github.com/google/lovefield/blob/master/docs/spec_index.md

docs.oracle.com/en/middleware/standalone/coherence

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

valentina-db.com/docs/dokuwiki/v5/doku.php

Developer

FatCloud

Google

Oracle

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Paradigma Software

Initial release

2012

2014

2007

2000

1999

Current release

2.1.12, February 2017

14.1, August 2023

3.45.2 (12 March 2024), March 2024

5.7.5

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache 2.0

commercial

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

JavaScript

Java

Server operating systems

Windows

server-less, requires a JavaScript environment (browser, Node.js)

tested with Chrome, Firefox, IE, Safari

All OS with a Java VM

server-less

Linux
OS X
Windows

Data scheme

schema-free

yes

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.

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

Via inetgration in SQL Server

SQL-like query language

via JavaScript builder pattern

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

yes

APIs and other access methods

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

JCache
JPA
RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

ODBC

Supported programming languages

JavaScript

.Net
C++
Java

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

.Net
C
C#
C++
Objective-C
PHP
Ruby
Visual Basic
Visual Basic.NET

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

via applications

yes

Triggers

yes

via applications

Using read-only observers

yes

Live Events

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

none

Sharding

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

selectable replication factor

none

yes, with selectable consistency level

none

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

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

configurable

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

via file-system locks

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

yes, by using IndexedDB or the cloud service Firebase Realtime Database

yes

optionally

yes

In-memory capabilities

Is there an option to define some or all structures to be held in-memory only.

yes

using MemoryDB

yes

User concepts

Access control

Can implement custom security layer via applications

authentification to access the cache via certificates or http basic authentication

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.