DBMS > Graph Engine vs. RavenDB vs. RocksDB vs. SWC-DB vs. Transbase

System Properties Comparison Graph Engine vs. RavenDB vs. RocksDB vs. SWC-DB vs. Transbase

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

Open Source Operational and Transactional Enterprise NoSQL Document Database

Embeddable persistent key-value store optimized for fast storage (flash and RAM)

A high performance, scalable Wide Column DBMS

A resource-optimized, high-performance, universally applicable RDBMS

Primary database model

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

Secondary database models

Graph DBMS
Spatial DBMS
Time Series DBMS

Time Series 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	2.92
Rank	#101	Overall
	#18	Document stores

Score	3.65
Rank	#85	Overall
	#11	Key-value stores

Score	0.01
Rank	#376	Overall
	#13	Wide column stores

Score	0.11
Rank	#341	Overall
	#150	Relational DBMS

Website

www.graphengine.io

ravendb.net

rocksdb.org

github.com/kashirin-alex/swc-db
www.swcdb.org

www.transaction.de/en/products/transbase.html

Technical documentation

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

ravendb.net/docs

github.com/facebook/rocksdb/wiki

www.transaction.de/en/products/transbase/features.html

Developer

Microsoft

Hibernating Rhinos

Facebook, Inc.

Alex Kashirin

Transaction Software GmbH

Initial release

2010

2013

2020

1987

Current release

5.4, July 2022

8.11.4, April 2024

0.5, April 2021

Transbase 8.3, 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

MIT License

Open Source

AGPL version 3, commercial license available

Open Source

BSD

Open Source

GPL V3

commercial

free development license

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++

C and C++

Server operating systems

.NET

Linux
macOS
Raspberry Pi
Windows

Linux

FreeBSD
Linux
macOS
Solaris
Windows

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

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.

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like query language (RQL)

SQL-like query language

yes

APIs and other access methods

RESTful HTTP API

.NET Client API
F# Client API
Go Client API
Java Client API
NodeJS Client API
PHP Client API
Python Client API
RESTful HTTP API

C++ API
Java API

Proprietary protocol
Thrift

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
Proprietary native API

Supported programming languages

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

.Net
C#
F#
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
Ruby

C
C++
Go
Java
Perl
Python
Ruby

C++

C
C#
C++
Java
JavaScript
Kotlin
Objective-C
PHP
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

horizontal partitioning

Sharding

horizontal partitioning

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Multi-source replication

yes

Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Default ACID transactions on the local node (eventually consistent across the cluster). Atomic operations with cluster-wide ACID transactions. Eventual consistency for indexes and full-text search indexes.

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID, Cluster-wide transaction available

yes

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

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

Authorization levels configured per client per database

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.