DBMS > HarperDB vs. Netezza vs. SQLite vs. Tkrzw vs. Yaacomo

System Properties Comparison HarperDB vs. Netezza vs. SQLite vs. Tkrzw vs. Yaacomo

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Yaacomo seems to be discontinued and is removed from the DB-Engines ranking

Description

Ultra-low latency distributed database with an intuitive REST API supporting NoSQL and SQL (including joins). Deployment of functions and databases simultaneously with a consolidated node-level architecture.

Data warehouse and analytics appliance part of IBM PureSystems

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

A concept of libraries, allowing an application program to store and query key-value pairs in a file. Successor of Tokyo Cabinet and Kyoto Cabinet

OpenCL based in-memory RDBMS, designed for efficiently utilizing the hardware via parallel computing

Primary database model

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

Score	0.55
Rank	#248	Overall
	#38	Document stores

Score	9.06
Rank	#46	Overall
	#29	Relational DBMS

Score	114.32
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Score	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#60	Key-value stores

Website

www.harperdb.io

www.ibm.com/products/netezza

www.sqlite.org

dbmx.net/tkrzw

yaacomo.com

Technical documentation

docs.harperdb.io/docs

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

Developer

HarperDB

IBM

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Mikio Hirabayashi

Q2WEB GmbH

Initial release

2017

2000

2020

2009

Current release

3.1, August 2021

3.45.3 (15 April 2024), April 2024

0.9.3, August 2020

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free community edition available

commercial

Open Source

Public Domain

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0

commercial

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

Node.js

C++

Server operating systems

Linux
OS X

Linux

included in appliance

server-less

Linux
macOS

Android
Linux
Windows

Data scheme

dynamic schema

yes

dynamic column types

schema-free

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

JSON data types

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.

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like data manipulation statements

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

yes

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC
React Hooks
RESTful HTTP/JSON API
WebSocket

JDBC
ODBC
OLE DB

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

.Net
C
C#
C++
ColdFusion
D
Dart
Delphi
Erlang
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Lisp
MatLab
Objective C
Perl
PHP
PowerShell
Prolog
Python
R
Ruby
Rust
Scala
Swift

C
C++
Fortran
Java
Lua
Perl
Python
R

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
Python
Ruby

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Custom Functions

since release 3.1

yes

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

A table resides as a whole on one (or more) nodes in a cluster

Sharding

none

horizontal partitioning

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

the nodes on which a table resides can be defined

Source-replica replication

none

Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

Atomic execution of specific operations

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

via file-system locks

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes, using LMDB

yes

In-memory capabilities

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

yes

using specific database classes

yes

User concepts

Access control

Access rights for users and roles

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

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.