DBMS > Lovefield vs. Memcached vs. Postgres-XL vs. SQLite

System Properties Comparison Lovefield vs. Memcached vs. Postgres-XL vs. SQLite

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

Embeddable relational database for web apps written in pure JavaScript

In-memory key-value store, originally intended for caching

Based on PostgreSQL enhanced with MPP and write-scale-out cluster features

Widely used embeddable, in-process RDBMS

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Secondary database models

Document store
Spatial DBMS

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

Score	0.22
Rank	#306	Overall
	#138	Relational DBMS

Score	16.84
Rank	#32	Overall
	#4	Key-value stores

Score	0.43
Rank	#260	Overall
	#119	Relational DBMS

Score	103.35
Rank	#10	Overall
	#7	Relational DBMS

Website

google.github.io/lovefield

www.memcached.org

www.postgres-xl.org

www.sqlite.org

Technical documentation

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

github.com/memcached/memcached/wiki

www.postgres-xl.org/documentation

www.sqlite.org/docs.html

Developer

Google

Danga Interactive

originally developed by Brad Fitzpatrick for LiveJournal

Dwayne Richard Hipp

Initial release

2014

2003

2014

since 2012, originally named StormDB

2000

Current release

2.1.12, February 2017

1.6.29, June 2024

10 R1, October 2018

3.46.1 (13 August 2024), August 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache 2.0

Open Source

BSD license

Open Source

Mozilla public license

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

JavaScript

Server operating systems

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

tested with Chrome, Firefox, IE, Safari

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X
Unix
Windows

Linux
macOS

server-less

Data scheme

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.

yes

XML type, but no XML query functionality

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like query language

via JavaScript builder pattern

yes

distributed, parallel query execution

yes

SQL-92 is not fully supported

APIs and other access methods

Proprietary protocol

ADO.NET
JDBC
native C library
ODBC
streaming API for large objects

ADO.NET

inofficial driver
JDBC

inofficial driver
ODBC

inofficial driver

Supported programming languages

JavaScript

.Net
C
C++
ColdFusion
Erlang
Java
Lisp
Lua
OCaml
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby

.Net
C
C++
Delphi
Erlang
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Perl
PHP
Python
Tcl

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

user defined functions

Triggers

Using read-only observers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

horizontal partitioning

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

Repcached, a Memcached patch, provides this functionallity

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

MVCC

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

via file-system locks

Durability

Support for making data persistent

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

yes

using SASL (Simple Authentication and Security Layer) protocol

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.