DBMS > IBM Db2 vs. Lovefield vs. OrigoDB vs. SQLite

System Properties Comparison IBM Db2 vs. Lovefield vs. OrigoDB vs. SQLite

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

Common in IBM host environments, 2 different versions for host and Windows/Linux

Embeddable relational database for web apps written in pure JavaScript

A fully ACID in-memory object graph database

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Since Version 10.5 support for JSON/BSON documents compatible with MongoDB

Relational DBMS

Document store
Object oriented DBMS

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
RDF store

in Db2 LUW (Linux, Unix, Windows)
Spatial DBMS

with Db2 Spatial Extender

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

Score	123.05
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Score	0.22
Rank	#306	Overall
	#138	Relational DBMS

Score	0.00
Rank	#385	Overall
	#54	Document stores
	#21	Object oriented DBMS

Score	103.35
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Website

www.ibm.com/products/db2

google.github.io/lovefield

origodb.com

www.sqlite.org

Technical documentation

www.ibm.com/docs/en/db2

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

origodb.com/docs

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

Developer

IBM

Google

Robert Friberg et al

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Initial release

1983

host version

2014

2009

under the name LiveDB

2000

Current release

12.1, October 2016

2.1.12, February 2017

3.46.1 (13 August 2024), August 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free version is available

Open Source

Apache 2.0

Open Source

Public Domain

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

C and C++

JavaScript

Server operating systems

AIX
HP-UX
Linux
Solaris
Windows
z/OS

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

tested with Chrome, Firefox, IE, Safari

Linux
Windows

server-less

Data scheme

yes

dynamic column types

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

User defined using .NET types and collections

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.

can be achieved using .NET

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

SQL-like query language

via JavaScript builder pattern

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

APIs and other access methods

ADO.NET
JDBC
JSON style queries

MongoDB compatible
ODBC
XQuery

.NET Client API
HTTP API
LINQ

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

Supported programming languages

C
C#
C++
Cobol
Delphi
Fortran
Java
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby
Visual Basic

JavaScript

.Net

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

Triggers

yes

Using read-only observers

yes

Domain Events

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

only with Windows/Unix/Linux Version

none

horizontal partitioning

client side managed; servers are not synchronized

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

with separate tools (MQ, InfoSphere)

none

Source-replica replication

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

depending on model

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

via file-system locks

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

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

yes

Write ahead log

yes

In-memory capabilities

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

yes

using MemoryDB

yes

User concepts

Access control

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

Role based authorization

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.