DBMS > LMDB vs. OpenEdge vs. SQLite vs. TigerGraph vs. Tigris

System Properties Comparison LMDB vs. OpenEdge vs. SQLite vs. TigerGraph vs. Tigris

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

A high performant, light-weight, embedded key-value database library

Application development environment with integrated database management system

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

A complete, distributed, parallel graph computing platform supporting web-scale data analytics in real-time

A horizontally scalable, ACID transactional, document database available both as a fully managed cloud service and for deployment on self-managed infrastructure

Primary database model

Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Graph DBMS

Document store
Key-value store
Search engine
Time Series DBMS

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

Score	1.94
Rank	#120	Overall
	#20	Key-value stores

Score	3.69
Rank	#78	Overall
	#42	Relational DBMS

Score	103.35
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Score	1.44
Rank	#152	Overall
	#14	Graph DBMS

Score	0.05
Rank	#359	Overall
	#50	Document stores
	#52	Key-value stores
	#23	Search engines
	#37	Time Series DBMS

Website

www.symas.com/symas-embedded-database-lmdb

www.progress.com/openedge

www.sqlite.org

www.tigergraph.com

www.tigrisdata.com

Technical documentation

www.lmdb.tech/doc

documentation.progress.com/output/ua/OpenEdge_latest

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

docs.tigergraph.com

www.tigrisdata.com/docs

Developer

Symas

Progress Software Corporation

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Tigris Data, Inc.

Initial release

2011

1984

2000

2017

2022

Current release

0.9.32, January 2024

OpenEdge 12.2, March 2020

3.46.1 (13 August 2024), August 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Public Domain

commercial

Open Source

Apache Version 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

C++

Server operating systems

Linux
Unix
Windows

AIX
HP-UX
Linux
Solaris
Windows

server-less

Linux

Linux
macOS
Windows

Data scheme

schema-free

yes

dynamic column types

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

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

yes

close to SQL 92

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

SQL-like query language (GSQL)

APIs and other access methods

JDBC
ODBC

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

GSQL (TigerGraph Query Language)
Kafka
RESTful HTTP/JSON API

CLI Client
gRPC
RESTful HTTP API

Supported programming languages

.Net
C
C++
Clojure
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Lisp
Lua
MatLab
Nim
Objective C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
Python
R
Ruby
Rust
Swift
Tcl

Progress proprietary ABL (Advanced Business Language)

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

Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

horizontal partitioning

since Version 11.4

none

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

Source-replica replication

none

yes

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

Relationships in graphs

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

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

yes, using FoundationDB

In-memory capabilities

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

yes

User concepts

Access control

Users and groups

Role-based access control

Access rights for users and roles

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.