DBMS > Lovefield vs. MySQL vs. OpenMLDB vs. TerarkDB

System Properties Comparison Lovefield vs. MySQL vs. OpenMLDB vs. TerarkDB

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

Widely used open source RDBMS

An open-source machine learning database that provides a feature platform for training and inference

A key-value store forked from RocksDB with advanced compression algorithms. It can be used standalone or as a storage engine for MySQL and MongoDB

Primary database model

Relational DBMS

Key/Value like access via memcached API

Time Series DBMS

Key-value store

Secondary database models

Document store
Spatial DBMS

Relational DBMS

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

Score	0.22
Rank	#306	Overall
	#138	Relational DBMS

Score	1029.49
Rank	#2	Overall
	#2	Relational DBMS

Score	0.11
Rank	#339	Overall
	#30	Time Series DBMS

Score	0.00
Rank	#385	Overall
	#61	Key-value stores

Website

google.github.io/lovefield

www.mysql.com

openmldb.ai

github.com/bytedance/terarkdb

Technical documentation

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

dev.mysql.com/doc

openmldb.ai/docs/zh/main

bytedance.larkoffice.com/docs/doccnZmYFqHBm06BbvYgjsHHcKc

Developer

Google

Oracle

since 2010, originally MySQL AB, then Sun

4 Paradigm Inc.

ByteDance, originally Terark

Initial release

2014

1995

2020

2016

Current release

2.1.12, February 2017

9.0.0, July 2024

2024-2 February 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache 2.0

Open Source

GPL version 2. Commercial licenses with extended functionallity are available

Open Source

commercial

restricted open source version available

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

C and C++

C++, Java, Scala

C++

Server operating systems

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

tested with Chrome, Firefox, IE, Safari

FreeBSD
Linux
OS X
Solaris
Windows

Linux

Data scheme

yes

Fixed schema

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

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.

yes

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like query language

via JavaScript builder pattern

yes

with proprietary extensions

yes

APIs and other access methods

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
Proprietary native API

JDBC
SQLAlchemy

C++ API
Java API

Supported programming languages

JavaScript

Ada
C
C#
C++
D
Delphi
Eiffel
Erlang
Haskell
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Objective-C
OCaml
Perl
PHP
Python
Ruby
Scheme
Tcl

C++
Go
Java
Python
Scala

C++
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

proprietary syntax

Triggers

Using read-only observers

yes

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

none

horizontal partitioning, sharding with MySQL Cluster or MySQL Fabric

horizontal partitioning

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

none

Multi-source replication
Source-replica replication

Source-replica replication

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

not for MyISAM storage engine

Transaction concepts

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

ACID

not for MyISAM storage engine

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

table locks or row locks depending on storage engine

yes

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

Users with fine-grained authorization concept

no user groups or 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.