DBMS > FoundationDB vs. OrigoDB vs. SQLite vs. SQream DB

System Properties Comparison FoundationDB vs. OrigoDB vs. SQLite vs. SQream DB

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Created as commercial project in 2013, FoundationDB has been acquired by Apple in March 2015 and was withdrawn from the market. As a consequence, the product was removed from the DB-Engines ranking. In April 2018, Apple open-sourced FoundationDB and it therefore reappears in the ranking.

Description

Ordered key-value store. Core features are complimented by layers.

A fully ACID in-memory object graph database

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

a GPU-based, columnar RDBMS for big data analytics workloads

Primary database model

Document store

supported via specific layer
Key-value store
Relational DBMS

supported via specific SQL-layer

Document store
Object oriented DBMS

Relational DBMS

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

Score	0.97
Rank	#191	Overall
	#32	Document stores
	#28	Key-value stores
	#87	Relational DBMS

Score	0.00
Rank	#385	Overall
	#54	Document stores
	#21	Object oriented DBMS

Score	103.35
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Score	0.62
Rank	#234	Overall
	#109	Relational DBMS

Website

github.com/apple/foundationdb

origodb.com

www.sqlite.org

sqream.com

Technical documentation

apple.github.io/foundationdb

origodb.com/docs

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

docs.sqream.com

Developer

FoundationDB

Robert Friberg et al

Dwayne Richard Hipp

SQream Technologies

Initial release

2013

2009

under the name LiveDB

2000

2017

Current release

6.2.28, November 2020

3.46.1 (13 August 2024), August 2024

2022.1.6, December 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache 2.0

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

C++

C++, CUDA, Haskell, Java, Scala

Server operating systems

Linux
OS X
Windows

Linux
Windows

server-less

Linux

Data scheme

schema-free

some layers support schemas

yes

dynamic column types

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

some layers support typing

User defined using .NET types and collections

yes

not rigid because of 'dynamic typing' concept.

yes, ANSI Standard SQL Types

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.

can be achieved using .NET

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

supported in specific SQL layer only

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

yes

APIs and other access methods

.NET Client API
HTTP API
LINQ

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

.Net
JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

.Net
C
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript

Node.js
PHP
Python
Ruby
Swift

.Net

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

C++
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

in SQL-layer only

yes

user defined functions in Python

Triggers

yes

Domain Events

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

horizontal partitioning

client side managed; servers are not synchronized

none

horizontal and vertical partitioning

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Source-replica replication

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Linearizable consistency

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

in SQL-layer only

depending on model

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

Write ahead log

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

Role based authorization

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.