DBMS > Graph Engine vs. SQLite vs. ToroDB vs. Vitess

System Properties Comparison Graph Engine vs. SQLite vs. ToroDB vs. Vitess

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

ToroDB 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

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

A MongoDB-compatible JSON document store, built on top of PostgreSQL

Scalable, distributed, cloud-native DBMS, extending MySQL

Primary database model

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Document store

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
Spatial DBMS

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	111.41
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Score	0.88
Rank	#203	Overall
	#95	Relational DBMS

Website

www.graphengine.io

www.sqlite.org

github.com/torodb/server

vitess.io

Technical documentation

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

vitess.io/docs

Developer

Microsoft

Dwayne Richard Hipp

8Kdata

The Linux Foundation, PlanetScale

Initial release

2010

2000

2016

2013

Current release

3.46.0 (23 May 2024), May 2024

15.0.2, December 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

MIT License

Open Source

Public Domain

Open Source

AGPL-V3

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0, commercial licenses available

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

Java

Server operating systems

.NET

server-less

All OS with a Java 7 VM

Docker
Linux
macOS

Data scheme

yes

dynamic column types

schema-free

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

not rigid because of 'dynamic typing' concept.

yes

string, integer, double, boolean, date, object_id

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

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

yes

with proprietary extensions

APIs and other access methods

RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

ADO.NET
JDBC
MySQL protocol
ODBC

Supported programming languages

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

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

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

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

proprietary syntax

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

horizontal partitioning

none

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

Source-replica replication

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

Eventual Consistency across shards
Immediate Consistency within a shard

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

not for MyISAM storage engine

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

ACID at shard level

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

via file-system locks

yes

table locks or row locks depending on storage engine

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 and roles

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

no user groups or roles

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.