DBMS > etcd vs. Infobright vs. OpenQM vs. TimesTen

System Properties Comparison etcd vs. Infobright vs. OpenQM vs. TimesTen

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

High performant column-oriented DBMS for analytic workloads using MySQL or PostgreSQL as a frontend

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

An in-memory SQL relational database that delivers microsecond response and high throughput for OLTP applications. TimesTen can be deployed as a standalone database or as a cache to a backend Oracle database.

Primary database model

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

Score	7.05
Rank	#53	Overall
	#5	Key-value stores

Score	0.88
Rank	#198	Overall
	#92	Relational DBMS

Score	0.28
Rank	#291	Overall
	#10	Multivalue DBMS

Score	1.26
Rank	#164	Overall
	#75	Relational DBMS

Website

etcd.io
github.com/etcd-io/etcd

ignitetech.com/softwarelibrary/infobrightdb

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

www.oracle.com/database/technologies/related/timesten.html

Technical documentation

etcd.io/docs
github.com/etcd-io/etcd/tree/master/Documentation

docs.oracle.com/en/database/other-databases/timesten/index.html

Developer

Ignite Technologies Inc.; formerly InfoBright Inc.

Rocket Software, originally Martin Phillips

Oracle

originally founded in HP Labs it was acquired by Oracle in 2005

Initial release

2005

1993

1998

Current release

3.4, August 2019

3.4-12

Release 22.1

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache Version 2.0

commercial

The open source (GPLv2) version did not support inserts/updates/deletes and was discontinued with July 2016

Open Source

GPLv2, extended commercial license available

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

Server operating systems

FreeBSD
Linux
Windows

experimental

Linux
Windows

AIX
FreeBSD
Linux
macOS
Raspberry Pi
Solaris
Windows

IBM AIX Power PC 64-bit
Linux arm64
Linux x86-64
Solaris SPARC 64
Solaris SPARC/x86
Solaris x86-64

Data scheme

schema-free

yes

with some exceptions

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

Secondary indexes

Knowledge Grid Technology used instead

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

APIs and other access methods

gRPC
JSON over HTTP

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC

ODBC
ODP.NET
Oracle Call Interface (OCI)
Pro*C/C++ programming interfaces
SQL and PL/SQL via JDBC

Supported programming languages

.Net
C
C++
Clojure
Erlang
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Perl
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Rust
Scala
Tcl

.Net
C
C#
C++
D
Eiffel
Erlang
Haskell
Java
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scheme
Tcl

.Net
Basic
C
Java
Objective C
PHP
Python

C
C++
Java
Node.js
PL/SQL
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

PL/SQL

Triggers

yes, watching key changes

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

yes

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Using Raft consensus algorithm to ensure data replication with strong consistency among multiple replicas.

Source-replica replication

yes

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

by means of logfiles and checkpoints

In-memory capabilities

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

yes

User concepts

Access control

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

exploiting MySQL or PostgreSQL frontend capabilities

Access rights can be defined down to the item level

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

ETCD guidelines: RBI seeks to balance rupee stability, competitiveness | Policy Circle
8 April 2024, Policy Circle

Public preview: AKS cluster control plane metrics in managed Prometheus
12 February 2024, Microsoft

Is Your etcd an Open Door for Cyber Attacks? How to Secure Your Kubernetes Clusters & Nodes
8 November 2023, Information Security Newspaper

Monitor Amazon EKS Control Plane metrics using AWS Open Source monitoring services
12 October 2023, AWS Blog

6 Cool Kubernetes Operators and How to Use Them
22 January 2024, hackernoon.com

provided by Google News

Oracle starts peddling Exalytics in-memory appliance
12 March 2012, The Register

SAP S&D Benchmark - The Intel Xeon E7-8800 v3 Review: The POWER8 Killer?
8 May 2015, AnandTech

The Intel Xeon E7-8800 v3 Review: The POWER8 Killer?
8 May 2015, AnandTech

provided by Google News

Share this page