DBMS > GridDB vs. Hazelcast vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. SQLite

System Properties Comparison GridDB vs. Hazelcast vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. SQLite

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

Scalable in-memory time series database optimized for IoT and Big Data

A widely adopted in-memory data grid

A Wide Column Store for rapid development using massive semi-structured datasets

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

Primary database model

Secondary database models

Key-value store
Relational DBMS

Document store

JSON support with IMDG 3.12

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

Score	1.91
Rank	#123	Overall
	#10	Time Series DBMS

Score	5.72
Rank	#59	Overall
	#6	Key-value stores

Score	3.55
Rank	#80	Overall
	#6	Wide column stores

Score	103.35
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Website

griddb.net

hazelcast.com

azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/storage/tables

www.sqlite.org

Technical documentation

docs.griddb.net

hazelcast.org/imdg/docs

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

Developer

Toshiba Corporation

Hazelcast

Microsoft

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Initial release

2013

2008

2012

2000

Current release

5.1, August 2022

5.3.6, November 2023

3.46.1 (13 August 2024), August 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

AGPL version 3 and Apache License, version 2.0 , commercial license (standard and advanced editions) also available

Open Source

Apache Version 2; commercial licenses available

commercial

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

C++

Java

Server operating systems

Linux

All OS with a Java VM

hosted

server-less

Data scheme

yes

schema-free

yes

dynamic column types

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

numerical, string, blob, geometry, boolean, timestamp

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.

yes

the object must implement a serialization strategy

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL92, SQL-like TQL (Toshiba Query Language)

SQL-like query language

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC
Proprietary protocol
RESTful HTTP/JSON API

JCache
JPA
Memcached protocol
RESTful HTTP API

RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

Supported programming languages

C
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby

.Net
C#
C++
Clojure
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Python
Scala

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

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

Event Listeners, Executor Services

Triggers

yes

Events

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

Implicit feature of the cloud service

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Source-replica replication

yes

Replicated Map

yes

implicit feature of the cloud service. Replication either local, cross-facility or geo-redundant.

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Connector for using GridDB as an input source and output destination for Hadoop MapReduce jobs

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate consistency within container, eventual consistency across containers

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency selectable by user

Raft Consensus Algorithm

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID at container level

one or two-phase-commit; repeatable reads; read commited

optimistic locking

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

via file-system locks

Durability

Support for making data persistent

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

Role-based access control

Access rights based on private key authentication or shared access signatures

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.