DBMS > LevelDB vs. OrigoDB vs. Snowflake vs. Transwarp StellarDB

System Properties Comparison LevelDB vs. OrigoDB vs. Snowflake vs. Transwarp StellarDB

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

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

A fully ACID in-memory object graph database

Cloud-based data warehousing service for structured and semi-structured data

A distributed graph DBMS built for enterprise-level graph applications

Primary database model

Key-value store

Document store
Object oriented DBMS

Relational DBMS

Graph DBMS

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

Score	2.25
Rank	#115	Overall
	#19	Key-value stores

Score	0.06
Rank	#380	Overall
	#50	Document stores
	#18	Object oriented DBMS

Score	130.36
Rank	#8	Overall
	#5	Relational DBMS

Score	0.07
Rank	#371	Overall
	#39	Graph DBMS

Website

github.com/google/leveldb

origodb.com

www.snowflake.com

www.transwarp.cn/en/product/stellardb

Technical documentation

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

origodb.com/docs

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

Developer

Google

Robert Friberg et al

Snowflake Computing Inc.

Transwarp

Initial release

2011

2009

under the name LiveDB

2014

Current release

1.23, February 2021

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

BSD

Open Source

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++

Server operating systems

Illumos
Linux
OS X
Windows

Linux
Windows

hosted

Data scheme

schema-free

yes

support of semi-structured data formats (JSON, XML, Avro)

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

User defined using .NET types and collections

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.

can be achieved using .NET

yes

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

yes

SQL-like query language

APIs and other access methods

.NET Client API
HTTP API
LINQ

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

OpenCypher

Supported programming languages

C++
Go
Java

3rd party binding
JavaScript (Node.js)

3rd party binding
Python

3rd party binding

.Net

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

Domain Events

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

horizontal partitioning

client side managed; servers are not synchronized

yes

horizontal partitioning

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

Source-replica replication

yes

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

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

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

with automatic compression on writes

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

User concepts

Access control

Role based authorization

Users with fine-grained authorization concept, user roles and pluggable authentication

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.