DBMS > LMDB vs. Prometheus vs. SQLite

System Properties Comparison LMDB vs. Prometheus vs. SQLite

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

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

Open-source Time Series DBMS and monitoring system

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

Primary database model

Key-value store

Time Series DBMS

Relational DBMS

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

Score	2.33
Rank	#118	Overall
	#21	Key-value stores

Score	7.92
Rank	#51	Overall
	#2	Time Series DBMS

Score	116.01
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Website

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

prometheus.io

www.sqlite.org

Technical documentation

www.lmdb.tech/doc

prometheus.io/docs

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

Developer

Symas

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Initial release

2011

2015

2000

Current release

0.9.32, January 2024

3.45.3 (15 April 2024), April 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

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

Server operating systems

Linux
Unix
Windows

Linux
Windows

server-less

Data scheme

schema-free

yes

dynamic column types

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

Numeric data only

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.

Import of XML data possible

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

APIs and other access methods

RESTful HTTP/JSON API

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

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

.Net
C++
Go
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Python
Ruby

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

Triggers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

Sharding

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

yes

by Federation

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

none

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

via file-system locks

Durability

Support for making data persistent

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

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.