DBMS > Graph Engine vs. HEAVY.AI vs. IBM Db2 warehouse vs. Lovefield vs. SQLite

System Properties Comparison Graph Engine vs. HEAVY.AI vs. IBM Db2 warehouse vs. Lovefield vs. SQLite

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

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

A high performance, column-oriented RDBMS, specifically developed to harness the massive parallelism of modern CPU and GPU hardware

Cloud-based data warehousing service

Embeddable relational database for web apps written in pure JavaScript

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

Primary database model

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

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	1.77
Rank	#141	Overall
	#65	Relational DBMS

Score	1.30
Rank	#164	Overall
	#75	Relational DBMS

Score	0.29
Rank	#293	Overall
	#133	Relational DBMS

Score	114.32
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Website

www.graphengine.io

github.com/heavyai/heavydb
www.heavy.ai

www.ibm.com/products/db2/warehouse

google.github.io/lovefield

www.sqlite.org

Technical documentation

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

docs.heavy.ai

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

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

Developer

Microsoft

HEAVY.AI, Inc.

IBM

Google

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Initial release

2010

2016

2014

2000

Current release

5.10, January 2022

2.1.12, February 2017

3.45.3 (15 April 2024), April 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

MIT License

Open Source

Apache Version 2; enterprise edition available

commercial

Open Source

Apache 2.0

Open Source

Public Domain

Cloud-based only

Only available as a cloud service

yes

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 CUDA

JavaScript

Server operating systems

.NET

Linux

hosted

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

tested with Chrome, Firefox, IE, Safari

server-less

Data scheme

yes

dynamic column types

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

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.

Import/export of XML data possible

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

SQL-like query language

via JavaScript builder pattern

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

APIs and other access methods

RESTful HTTP API

JDBC
ODBC
Thrift
Vega

.NET Client API
JDBC
ODBC
OLE DB

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

Supported programming languages

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

All languages supporting JDBC/ODBC/Thrift
Python

Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Perl
PHP
Python
R
Ruby

JavaScript

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

PL/SQL, SQL PL

Triggers

yes

Using read-only observers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

horizontal partitioning

Sharding

Round robin

Sharding

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Multi-source replication

yes

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

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

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

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

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

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.