DBMS > LevelDB vs. Lovefield vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. SQLite vs. Transwarp StellarDB

System Properties Comparison LevelDB vs. Lovefield vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. SQLite vs. Transwarp StellarDB

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

Embeddable fast key-value storage library that provides an ordered mapping from string keys to string values

Embeddable relational database for web apps written in pure JavaScript

A Wide Column Store for rapid development using massive semi-structured datasets

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

A distributed graph DBMS built for enterprise-level graph applications

Primary database model

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

Score	2.35
Rank	#111	Overall
	#19	Key-value stores

Score	0.29
Rank	#293	Overall
	#133	Relational DBMS

Score	4.48
Rank	#75	Overall
	#6	Wide column stores

Score	114.32
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Score	0.00
Rank	#383	Overall
	#39	Graph DBMS

Website

github.com/google/leveldb

google.github.io/lovefield

azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/storage/tables

www.sqlite.org

www.transwarp.cn/en/product/stellardb

Technical documentation

github.com/google/leveldb/blob/main/doc/index.md

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

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

Developer

Google

Microsoft

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Transwarp

Initial release

2011

2014

2012

2000

Current release

1.23, February 2021

2.1.12, February 2017

3.45.3 (15 April 2024), April 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

BSD

Open Source

Apache 2.0

commercial

Open Source

Public Domain

commercial

Cloud-based only

Only available as a cloud service

yes

DBaaS offerings (sponsored links)

Database as a Service

Providers of DBaaS offerings, please contact us to be listed.

Implementation language

C++

JavaScript

Server operating systems

Illumos
Linux
OS X
Windows

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

tested with Chrome, Firefox, IE, Safari

hosted

server-less

Data scheme

schema-free

yes

schema-free

yes

dynamic column types

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

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.

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like query language

via JavaScript builder pattern

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

SQL-like query language

APIs and other access methods

RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

OpenCypher

Supported programming languages

C++
Go
Java

3rd party binding
JavaScript (Node.js)

3rd party binding
Python

3rd party binding

JavaScript

.Net
C#
C++
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
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

Using read-only observers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

Sharding

Implicit feature of the cloud service

none

horizontal partitioning

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

yes

implicit feature of the cloud service. Replication either local, cross-facility or geo-redundant.

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

optimistic locking

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

via file-system locks

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

with automatic compression on writes

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

yes

User concepts

Access control

Access rights based on private key authentication or shared access signatures

yes

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.