DBMS > Graph Engine vs. Greenplum vs. IRONdb vs. SQLite

System Properties Comparison Graph Engine vs. Greenplum vs. IRONdb vs. SQLite

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

IRONdb seems to be discontinued. Therefore it is excluded from the DB-Engines Ranking.

Description

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

Analytic Database platform built on PostgreSQL. Full name is Pivotal Greenplum Database

A logical database in Greenplum is an array of individual PostgreSQL databases working together to present a single database image.

A distributed Time Series DBMS with a focus on scalability, fault tolerance and operational simplicity

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

Primary database model

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Time Series DBMS

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
Spatial 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	8.37
Rank	#48	Overall
	#30	Relational DBMS

Score	114.32
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Website

www.graphengine.io

greenplum.org

www.circonus.com/solutions/time-series-database/

www.sqlite.org

Technical documentation

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

docs.greenplum.org

docs.circonus.com/irondb/category/getting-started

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

Developer

Microsoft

Pivotal Software Inc.

Circonus LLC.

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Initial release

2010

2005

2017

2000

Current release

7.0.0, September 2023

V0.10.20, January 2018

3.45.3 (15 April 2024), April 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

MIT License

Open Source

Apache 2.0

commercial

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

.NET and C

C and C++

Server operating systems

.NET

Linux

server-less

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

yes

dynamic column types

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

text, numeric, histograms

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.

yes

since Version 4.2

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

SQL-like query language (Circonus Analytics Query Language: CAQL)

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

APIs and other access methods

RESTful HTTP API

JDBC
ODBC

HTTP API

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

Supported programming languages

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

C
Java
Perl
Python
R

.Net
C
C++
Clojure
Erlang
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript
JavaScript (Node.js)
Lisp
Lua
Perl
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Rust
Scala

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

yes, in Lua

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

horizontal partitioning

Sharding

Automatic, metric affinity per node

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Source-replica replication

configurable replication factor, datacenter aware

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Immediate consistency per node, eventual consistency across nodes

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

Durability

Support for making data persistent

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

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.