DBMS > LevelDB vs. Sequoiadb vs. Stardog vs. Yaacomo

System Properties Comparison LevelDB vs. Sequoiadb vs. Stardog vs. Yaacomo

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Yaacomo seems to be discontinued and is removed from the DB-Engines ranking

Description

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

NewSQL database with distributed OLTP and SQL

Enterprise Knowledge Graph platform and graph DBMS with high availability, high performance reasoning, and virtualization

OpenCL based in-memory RDBMS, designed for efficiently utilizing the hardware via parallel computing

Primary database model

Key-value store

Document store
Relational DBMS

Graph DBMS
RDF store

Relational DBMS

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

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

Score	0.45
Rank	#261	Overall
	#41	Document stores
	#122	Relational DBMS

Score	2.02
Rank	#123	Overall
	#11	Graph DBMS
	#6	RDF stores

Website

github.com/google/leveldb

www.sequoiadb.com

www.stardog.com

yaacomo.com

Technical documentation

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

www.sequoiadb.com/en/index.php?m=Files&a=index

docs.stardog.com

Developer

Google

Sequoiadb Ltd.

Stardog-Union

Q2WEB GmbH

Initial release

2011

2013

2010

2009

Current release

1.23, February 2021

7.3.0, May 2020

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

BSD

Open Source

Server: AGPL; Client: Apache V2

commercial

60-day fully-featured trial license; 1-year fully-featured non-commercial use license for academics/students

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

C++

Java

Server operating systems

Illumos
Linux
OS X
Windows

Linux

Linux
macOS
Windows

Android
Linux
Windows

Data scheme

schema-free

schema-free and OWL/RDFS-schema support

yes

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

oid, date, timestamp, binary, regex

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.

Import/export of XML data possible

Secondary indexes

yes

supports real-time indexing in full-text and geospatial

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like query language

Yes, compatible with all major SQL variants through dedicated BI/SQL Server

yes

APIs and other access methods

proprietary protocol using JSON

GraphQL query language
HTTP API
Jena RDF API
OWL
RDF4J API
Sesame REST HTTP Protocol
SNARL
SPARQL
Spring Data
Stardog Studio
TinkerPop 3

JDBC
ODBC

Supported programming languages

C++
Go
Java

3rd party binding
JavaScript (Node.js)

3rd party binding
Python

3rd party binding

.Net
C++
Java
PHP
Python

.Net
Clojure
Groovy
Java
JavaScript
Python
Ruby

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

JavaScript

user defined functions and aggregates, HTTP Server extensions in Java

Triggers

yes

via event handlers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

Sharding

none

horizontal partitioning

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

Source-replica replication

Multi-source replication in HA-Cluster

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

Eventual Consistency

Immediate Consistency in HA-Cluster

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

relationships in graphs

yes

Transaction concepts

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

Document is locked during a transaction

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

with automatic compression on writes

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

simple password-based access control

Access rights for users and roles

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

Pliops unveils XDP-Rocks for RocksDB – Blocks and Files
19 October 2022, Blocks & Files

Microsoft Teams stores auth tokens as cleartext in Windows, Linux, Macs
14 September 2022, BleepingComputer

XanMod, Liquorix Kernels Offer Some Advantages On AMD Ryzen 5 Notebook
26 July 2021, Phoronix

Threat Thursday: BlackGuard Infostealer Rises from Russian Underground Markets
21 April 2022, BlackBerry Blog

Rust-Based Info Stealers Abuse GitHub Codespaces
19 May 2023, Trend Micro

provided by Google News

Share this page