DBMS > HarperDB vs. OpenQM vs. SQLite vs. VelocityDB

System Properties Comparison HarperDB vs. OpenQM vs. SQLite vs. VelocityDB

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

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.

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

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

A .NET Object Database that can be embedded/distributed and extended to a graph data model (VelocityGraph)

Primary database model

Document store

Multivalue DBMS

Relational DBMS

Graph DBMS
Object oriented DBMS

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

Score	0.55
Rank	#248	Overall
	#38	Document stores

Score	0.27
Rank	#298	Overall
	#10	Multivalue DBMS

Score	114.32
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Score	0.05
Rank	#358	Overall
	#36	Graph DBMS
	#16	Object oriented DBMS

Website

www.harperdb.io

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

www.sqlite.org

velocitydb.com

Technical documentation

docs.harperdb.io/docs

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

velocitydb.com/UserGuide

Developer

HarperDB

Rocket Software, originally Martin Phillips

Dwayne Richard Hipp

VelocityDB Inc

Initial release

2017

1993

2000

2011

Current release

3.1, August 2021

3.4-12

3.45.3 (15 April 2024), April 2024

7.x

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free community edition available

Open Source

GPLv2, extended commercial license available

Open Source

Public Domain

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

Server operating systems

Linux
OS X

AIX
FreeBSD
Linux
macOS
Raspberry Pi
Solaris
Windows

server-less

Any that supports .NET

Data scheme

dynamic schema

yes

with some exceptions

yes

dynamic column types

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.

yes

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like data manipulation statements

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC
React Hooks
RESTful HTTP/JSON API
WebSocket

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

.Net

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

.Net
Basic
C
Java
Objective C
PHP
Python

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

.Net

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Custom Functions

since release 3.1

yes

Triggers

yes

Callbacks are triggered when data changes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

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

yes

none

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

the nodes on which a table resides can be defined

yes

none

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

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

User concepts

Access control

Access rights for users and roles

Access rights can be defined down to the item level

Based on Windows Authentication

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.