DBMS > Hazelcast vs. Linter vs. Lovefield vs. MonetDB

System Properties Comparison Hazelcast vs. Linter vs. Lovefield vs. MonetDB

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

A widely adopted in-memory data grid

RDBMS for high security requirements

Embeddable relational database for web apps written in pure JavaScript

A relational database management system that stores data in columns

Primary database model

Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store

JSON support with IMDG 3.12

Spatial DBMS

Document store
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	5.46
Rank	#61	Overall
	#7	Key-value stores

Score	0.12
Rank	#350	Overall
	#152	Relational DBMS

Score	0.33
Rank	#286	Overall
	#131	Relational DBMS

Score	1.72
Rank	#141	Overall
	#64	Relational DBMS

Website

hazelcast.com

linter.ru

google.github.io/lovefield

www.monetdb.org

Technical documentation

hazelcast.org/imdg/docs

github.com/google/lovefield/blob/master/docs/spec_index.md

www.monetdb.org/Documentation

Developer

Hazelcast

relex.ru

Google

MonetDB BV

Initial release

2008

1990

2014

2004

Current release

5.3.6, November 2023

2.1.12, February 2017

Dec2023 (11.49), December 2023

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache Version 2; commercial licenses available

commercial

Open Source

Apache 2.0

Open Source

Mozilla Public License 2.0

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

Java

C and C++

JavaScript

Server operating systems

All OS with a Java VM

AIX
Android
BSD
HP Open VMS
iOS
Linux
OS X
VxWorks
Windows

server-less, requires a JavaScript environment (browser, Node.js)

tested with Chrome, Firefox, IE, Safari

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

Data scheme

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.

yes

the object must implement a serialization strategy

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like query language

yes

SQL-like query language

via JavaScript builder pattern

yes

SQL 2003 with some extensions

APIs and other access methods

JCache
JPA
Memcached protocol
RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET
JDBC
LINQ
ODBC
OLE DB
Oracle Call Interface (OCI)

JDBC
native C library

MAPI library (MonetDB application programming interface)
ODBC

Supported programming languages

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

C
C#
C++
Java
Perl
PHP
Python
Qt
Ruby
Tcl

JavaScript

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

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Event Listeners, Executor Services

yes

proprietary syntax with the possibility to convert from PL/SQL

yes, in SQL, C, R

Triggers

yes

Events

yes

Using read-only observers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

none

Sharding via remote tables

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Replicated Map

Source-replica replication

none

Source-replica replication available in experimental status

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

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

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

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

yes, by using IndexedDB or the cloud service Firebase Realtime Database

yes

In-memory capabilities

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

yes

using MemoryDB

User concepts

Access control

Role-based access control

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.

Related products and services

We invite representatives of vendors of related products to contact us for presenting information about their offerings here.

More resources

Recent citations in the news

Hazelcast Weaves Wider Logic Threads Through The Data Fabric
7 March 2024, Forbes

Hazelcast 5.4 real time data processing platform boosts AI and consistency
17 April 2024, VentureBeat

Hazelcast appoints Anthony Griffin as Chief Architect -
11 June 2024, Enterprise Times

Hazelcast Showcases Real-Time Data Platform at 2024 Gartner Summit
15 May 2024, Datanami

Real-Time Data Platform Hazelcast Introduces New Chief Technology Officer Adrian Soars
7 November 2023, Finovate

provided by Google News

In 2024 the MonetDB Foundation was established for the preservation, maintenance and further development of the ...
31 January 2024, Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica (CWI)

MonetDB Secures Investment From (and Partners With) ServiceNow
9 December 2021, Datanami

PostgreSQL, MonetDB, and Too-Big-for-Memory Data in R - Part I - DataScienceCentral.com
6 April 2018, Data Science Central

How MonetDB Exploits Modern CPU Performance | by Dwi Prasetyo Adi Nugroho
14 January 2020, Towards Data Science

MonetDB Solutions secures investment from ServiceNow
30 September 2019, Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica (CWI)

provided by Google News

Share this page