DBMS > Graph Engine vs. IBM Cloudant vs. Postgres-XL vs. SQLite vs. TempoIQ

System Properties Comparison Graph Engine vs. IBM Cloudant vs. Postgres-XL vs. SQLite vs. TempoIQ

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

TempoIQ seems to be decommissioned. It will be removed 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

Database as a Service offering based on Apache CouchDB

Based on PostgreSQL enhanced with MPP and write-scale-out cluster features

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

Scalable analytics DBMS for sensor data, provided as a service (SaaS)

Primary database model

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

Document store

Relational DBMS

Time Series 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	2.68
Rank	#106	Overall
	#20	Document stores

Score	0.49
Rank	#256	Overall
	#117	Relational DBMS

Score	114.32
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Website

www.graphengine.io

www.ibm.com/products/cloudant

www.postgres-xl.org

www.sqlite.org

tempoiq.com (offline)

Technical documentation

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

cloud.ibm.com/docs/Cloudant

www.postgres-xl.org/documentation

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

Developer

Microsoft

IBM, Apache Software Foundation

IBM acquired Cloudant in February 2014

Dwayne Richard Hipp

TempoIQ

Initial release

2010

2014

since 2012, originally named StormDB

2000

2012

Current release

10 R1, October 2018

3.45.3 (15 April 2024), April 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

MIT License

commercial

Open Source

Mozilla public license

Open Source

Public Domain

commercial

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

Erlang

Server operating systems

.NET

hosted

Linux
macOS

server-less

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

yes

dynamic column types

schema-free

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

XML type, but no XML query functionality

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

distributed, parallel query execution

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

APIs and other access methods

RESTful HTTP API

RESTful HTTP/JSON API

ADO.NET
JDBC
native C library
ODBC
streaming API for large objects

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

HTTP API

Supported programming languages

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

C#
Java
JavaScript
Objective-C
PHP
Ruby

.Net
C
C++
Delphi
Erlang
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Perl
PHP
Python
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

C#
Java
JavaScript

Node.js
Python
Ruby

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

View functions (Map-Reduce) in JavaScript

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

Realtime Alerts

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

horizontal partitioning

Sharding

horizontal partitioning

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

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

atomic operations within a document possible

ACID

MVCC

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Optimistic locking

yes

via file-system locks

yes

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

Access rights for users can be defined per database

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

simple authentication-based access control

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.