DBMS > Graph Engine vs. MySQL vs. OpenQM vs. TerminusDB

System Properties Comparison Graph Engine vs. MySQL vs. OpenQM vs. TerminusDB

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

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

Widely used open source RDBMS

QpenQM is a high-performance, self-tuning, multi-value DBMS

Scalable Graph Database platform making enterprise data available by exploiting inferred entities and relationships

Primary database model

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Key/Value like access via memcached API

Multivalue DBMS

Graph DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
Spatial DBMS

Document store
RDF store

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

Score	0.67
Rank	#232	Overall
	#21	Graph DBMS
	#34	Key-value stores

Score	1061.34
Rank	#2	Overall
	#2	Relational DBMS

Score	0.34
Rank	#284	Overall
	#10	Multivalue DBMS

Score	0.23
Rank	#316	Overall
	#27	Graph DBMS

Website

www.graphengine.io

www.mysql.com

www.rocketsoftware.com/products/rocket-multivalue-application-development-platform/rocket-open-qm

terminusdb.com

Technical documentation

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

dev.mysql.com/doc

terminusdb.github.io/terminusdb/#

Developer

Microsoft

Oracle

since 2010, originally MySQL AB, then Sun

Rocket Software, originally Martin Phillips

DataChemist Ltd.

Initial release

2010

1995

1993

2018

Current release

8.4.0, April 2024

3.4-12

11.0.0, January 2023

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

MIT License

Open Source

GPL version 2. Commercial licenses with extended functionallity are available

Open Source

GPLv2, extended commercial license available

Open Source

GPL V3

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.

Aiven for MySQL: Fully managed MySQL, deployable in the cloud of your choice, with seamless integrations and lightning-fast setup.

Implementation language

.NET and C

C and C++

Prolog, Rust

Server operating systems

.NET

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

AIX
FreeBSD
Linux
macOS
Raspberry Pi
Solaris
Windows

Linux

Data scheme

yes

with some exceptions

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

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

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

with proprietary extensions

SQL-like query language (WOQL)

APIs and other access methods

RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
Proprietary native API

OWL
RESTful HTTP API
WOQL (Web Object Query Language)

Supported programming languages

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

Ada
C
C#
C++
D
Delphi
Eiffel
Erlang
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scheme
Tcl

.Net
Basic
C
Java
Objective C
PHP
Python

JavaScript
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

proprietary syntax

yes

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

horizontal partitioning

horizontal partitioning, sharding with MySQL Cluster or MySQL Fabric

yes

Graph Partitioning

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

yes

Journaling Streams

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

not for MyISAM storage engine

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

not for MyISAM storage engine

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

table locks or row locks depending on storage engine

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 journaling

In-memory capabilities

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

yes

User concepts

Access control

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

no user groups or roles

Access rights can be defined down to the item level

Role-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.